IN RE: Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation

Case MDL No. 195 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 6
. vy SUDIBIAL Pasir,
MUETIOIST iY EL On’ BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL RL pm ATIC
. r MI 1 T 4
wv MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION AAR =3 Js75
IN RE EASTERN AIRLINES, INC. FLIGHT ) BATRILIA p Vian	iF Shan 248}
ATTENDANT WEIGHT PROGRAM LITIGATION ) DOCKEEERG; BEL
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM x,
EDWARD WEINFELD *, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER *,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III *, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF
THE PANEL
PER CURIAM, | |	/
/
Thig litigation consists of two actions, one in the
District of Massachusetts and the other in the Eastern District
of Virginia, challenging certain weight standards promulgated
by Eastern Airlines for its flight attendants. Plaintiffs in
® the two actions purport to represent a nationwide class of all
female flight attendants employed by Eastern since July of 1965.
They allege that Eastern's weight requirements, which vary
according to height and sex, constitute unlawful discrimination
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the
ranges and maximum allowable weights for female flight attend-
ants are more stringent than those for male attendants.
The Massachusetts plaintiffs move for transfer of the
Virginia action to the District of Massachusetts pursuant to
* Although Judges Wisdom, Weinfeld, Becker and Lord were
unable to attend the Panel hearing, they have, with the
® consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 195 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 6
i. - 2 -
1/ |
® 28 U.S.C. §1407. Defendant Eastern favors the reguested
transfer. Plaintiffs in the Virginia action, however, oppose
transfer and, in the alternative, suggest the Eastern District
of Virginia as the transferee forum. We find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that transfer of the Massa-
chusetts action to the Eastern District of Virginia for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pend-
ing there will best serve the convenience of the parties and wit-
nesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The Virginia plaintiffs argue, in opposition to transfer,
that the only commonality between the Virginia and Massachusetts
actions arises from the challenges to Eastern's weight program
as written and that this aspect of the two actions involves solely
| common questions of law, as opposed to the requisite common
questions of fact. :
We agree that where the commonality between or among actions
rests solely on guestions of law, transfer under Section 1407
would be inappropriate. See In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F.
Supp. 1013, 1015 (J.P.M.L. 1971). We are not persuaded, however,
that the determination of the legality of Eastern's weight program,
as written, involves questions of law alone. Eastern's defense
1/ CL
~~ Movants originally excepted from their motion to transfer
certain aspects of the Virginia action. Following objection
to that procedure by both the Virginia plaintiffs and defend-
ant Rastern, movants amended their motion and now seek trans-—
fer of the Virginia action in its entirety. Our resolution
of the question of transfer focuses on the motion as amended.

Case MDL No. 195 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 6
Do - 2 - )
1/ |
® 28 U.S.C. §1407. Defendant Eastern favors the requested
transfer. Plaintiffs in the Virginia action, however, oppose
transfer and, in the alternative, suggest the Eastern District
| of Virginia as the transferee forum. We find that these actions
involve common questions of fact and that transfer of the Massa-
chusetts action to the Eastern District of Virginia for coordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pend-
ing there will best serve the convenience of the parties and wit-
nesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
The Virginia plaintiffs argue, in opposition to transfer,
that the only commonality between the Virginia and Massachusetts
actions arises from the challenges to Eastern's weight program
as written and that this aspect of the two actions involves solely
@ common questions of law, as opposed to the requisite common
questions of fact. |
We agree that where the commonality between or among actions
rests solely on questions of law, transfer under Section 1407
would be inappropriate. See In re Air Fare Litigation, 322 F.
Supp. 1013, 1015 (J.P.M.L. 1971). We are not persuaded, however,
that the determination of the legality of Eastern's weight program,
as written, involves questions of law alone. Eastern's defense
| L/ Movants originally excepted from their motion to transfer
certain aspects of the Virginia action. Following objection
to that procedure by both the Virginia plaintiffs and defend-
ant Eastern, movants amended their motion and now seek trans-
fer of the Virginia action in its entirety. Our resolution
of the question of transfer focuses on the motion as amended.
[

Case MDL No. 195 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 6
- _ 3 _
® | |> to this portion of plaintiffs' claims is that its weight regquire-
ments are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of its
business and therefore constitute bona fide occupational quali-
fications. We believe that discovery concerning this defense
will raise many factual issues common to both actions.
: : In addition, plaintiffs in both actions are, in differing
degrees, challenging the alleged discriminatory application of
Eastern's weight standards at various Eastern bases. Although
there has been much confusion and disagreement among the parties
as to the particular scope of those challenges in each action, :
we are persuaded that, as the pleadings are presently framed,
common questions of fact are plainly involved on this issue. |
@ Indeed, the very disagreement amongst the parties highlights
the need for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
Thus, the presence of common factual questions necessitates
transfer under Section 1407 in order to prevent duplication of
discovery and eliminate the possibility of inconsistent pretrial
rulings. Moreover, the need to insure uniform disposition of
the competing requests for class designations presents a compel-
ling reason for supervision of these actions in a single district.
See In re Equity Funding Corporation of America Securities
Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1386 (J.P.M.L. 1974).
Either the District of Massachusetts or the Eastern District
of Virginia could be described as an appropriate transferee
forum for this litigation. On balance, however, we favor the
® Eastern District of Virginia because that district has a

Case MDL No. 195 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	5 of 6
We 4 -
® significantly lighter civil action docket than the District
of Massachusetts and, therefore, is in the best position to
expeditiously process this particular litigation. See Annual
Report of theDirector of theAdministrative Office of the
United States Courts (1974), Table 18.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action on the attached
Schedule A pending in the District ofMassachusetts be, and
the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern District of
Virginia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to
the Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr. for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with
the action pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
¢
®

Case MDL No. 195 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 6
.
i SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 195
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETIS
Kathleen M. Hawkes, et al. v. Eastern Airlines, Civil Action
Inc. No. 74-1857-M
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA |
sandra Jarrell Ashworth, et al. v. Eastern Civil Action
Airlines, Inc. No. 74-353 (RRM)