IN RE: National Airlines, Inc., Maternity Leave Practices and Flight Attendant Weight Program Litigation

i Case MDL No. 218 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 3
. . OTRO | | . Betts rota
3 . IN RE NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. MATERN. LEAVE PRAC, ETC. 1435R Cite as 399 F.Supp. 1405 (1973)
SCHEDULE A—Continued of Virginia and actions against the air-
Oscar B. Williams, et al. v. Civil Action line brought in the Southern District ofThesUnited States of Amer- = No. Civ. S74-167 Florida, charging discrimination against :
ica, et a : } ) di certain female airline employees in ma-	: Oma A. James v. The Unite vil Action : _ , et ; | co
: States of Rmerica 0. Civ. S74-175 - ternity leave practices, weight require Co
: Bonnie L. Worthington v. Civil Action ments, promotional policies ang job clas-Southern. Pacffic Transporta- § No. Civ. S74-174-TUM sifications involved common questions of
tion Co., et a 4 fact and transfer of the Virginia action }! . Irning Gum yX The United# Civil Action . A ce ye
States of Amerka . & No.Civ.S74-607-Tum 10 the Southern District of Tlorida
Ruby Elaine Uhderwood J. Civil Action would best serve the convenience of par-: Southern Pacific {ranspogfa- No. Civ. S74-173-TJM ties and witnesses and promote the just .
: tion Co, et al. § § - ©. and efficient conduct of the litigation. .: : Barbara Ann Ashburgd v. Civil Action . i : ASouthern Pacific Trakgforta- No. Civ. S74-162 Order accordingly.
! tion Co., et al. A co. : ’ : .
; , "Northwestern Nationalf Kasur- Civil Action LC :
: ; . ance Group, et al. vf United No. Civ. S75-50-TJM R
i . States of America . : . 1 Courts 271.2 ; . CL LoBH Barbara E. Comptdfi v. T Civil Action Civil rights action against aicline
[ United States of Afnerica, ey, No. Civ. S74-179 and union pending in Eastern District
Co al. A of Virginia and civil rights actions
’ HE County of Sacranfento, etc. v. Civil Action inst airli . di . rae . -United States of America, et vo, Civ. S74-538-TJM against air ne pen ng mn Southern Dis-: ) al : Co : trict of Florida, charging discrimination
: Mary D. Beghett v. United Civ Action - against female airline employees in ima-
States of Aglerica, et al. NoXgiv. 74-561 © ternity leave practices, weight require-
. . Leota F. fOdle, et al wv. Civil Rction 5 ional Kei fob clas.. ) Southern f Pacific Railroad No. Cig S74-166 ments, promotiora policies, and Job cias-: 2 - Co, et af ; . sifications involved common questions of
wo . : . > fact and transfer of the Virginia action
: . to Southern District of Florida would
: 0 oo best serve convenience of parties and~ v witnesses and ‘promote just and afficient
PT } - : conduct of litigation. 28 U.S.C.A. §
1407. . :
Co In re NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. MA- 2. Courts G=277.2
: ) TERNITY LEAVE PRACTICES AND "Need to eliminate possibility of
: E FLIGHT ATTENDANT WEIGHT PRO- overlapping class determinations pre- 3GRAM LITIGATION. : sents compelling reason to bring ac-
: - 7 No. 218. . tions pending in different districts to-
’ . gether for pretrial in single jurisdiction.	. icial Panel o ultidistrict Litigation. :
Judie n Multidistrict Litigation. 55°15 S.C.A. § 1407,vc Aug. 29, 1975: . oT	,
. meeps 3 .
. . Proceedings were instituted on de- .
. fendant’s motion for an order transfer- OPINION AND ORDER .
ring an action pending in the Eastern Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chair-
District of Virginia to the Southern man, .and JOHN MINOR WISDOM¥, oo
i District of Florida. The Judicial Panel EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A.
- on Multidistriet Litigation held that a ROBSON*, WILLIAM IH. BECKER,
~~ civil rights action against an airline and JOSEPH S. LORD, Ii, and STANLEY
a union brought in the Eastern District A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. .
* Although Judges Wisdom, Robson aud Beck- have, with the consent of all parties, partici-
. ) er were: not present at the hearing, they pated in this decision.
A « id : B ~ -
9 ! E ) A k - Le	DE - Tome Loo tw . : -
a ’ RATT So tS : CC- : . - Yoo = HEE Rk . So
I Co pS or RINT . TE : to . |
! - N ~ ‘ ‘ [ “ h “. : A . :

Case MDL No. 218 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
ER | ) Bai Sein
® ) 1405 399 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT: PER CURIAM. (1] National has moved the Panel LL
~ Cipro ts aso Sor an order transferring the Gardner
Co : . This litigation consists of tour actions action to the Southern District of Flovi-: pending in two different districts: the da for coordinated or consolidated pre-
’ : fr ALPA, Leonqrd and Johnson actions I i pial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § ,~. the Southern District of Florida and “he 1467 with the actions pending there.
Gardner action n the Eastern District The Air Line Pilots Association and the ’
of Virgina. National Altines 1s named plaintiffs in Gardner oppose transfer
as a defendant tn every actigh and the and, in the alternative, the latter suz-
. Arr Line Pilots Association, the certijied gest that the Bastern District of Virgin- ’
oo ’ collective bargaining representative ror ia would be the most appropriate trans-
: a XNational flight attendants, 18 an iY foree forure. We find that these actions| itional defendant 1n Leonard. Lwo of involve common questions of fact and
| the actiohs, Gardner anc Leonard, are ou 4nsfer of Gardner to the South-
' . brought as class actions, the former on ern District of Florida under Section i
: . behalf of all females employed by Na- 1407 will best serve the convenience of
i tional and the latter on behalf of Na- parties and witnesses and promote
tional's female flight attendants only.t the just and efficient conduct	of the liti-
Co . Taken as a whole, the four complainls gation. -
contain allegations that Nationa1 violat- Plaintiffs in Gardner concede the ex-
oo ed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act oF jones of common factual questions
1964 by discriminating against certain, amon these actions but nevertheless op- .
i of. its female empioyees 1m 1s maternity pose transfer arguing that ibe Giffar-
leave practices, weight YEQUITEMEILS, nce in the various complaints preciude
: { promotional policies and joh classifica- Section 1407 treatment. They also con-
: : tions, National's maternwy leave poli- tend that transfer would be unduly in-
aes, which are attacked in cach of these. venjent to them and would impose a
acaons, atlegedly discriminate against gp, ,0041 hardship. The Air Line Pilots :
Seam females because pregnancy 1s notrtreated Association opposes the motion basically
5 ® like other accidents or sicknesses Sti yicause it bolieves thai discovery in
feredhei A a we ALPA is complete and that inclusion of{ Je oY CE . the action in Section 1407 proceedings
ployees are denied the use of siclc leave, \.01d delay trial therein?
oo vacation time and other benefits “that 4
; normally accrue to a National employee a, [21 . As all parties recognize, every
: who is absent because of a non-pregnan- action shares common factual issues re- )
cy related illness. The Leonard coro- garding National's maternity leave poli-
plaint charges National with discrimina-3, cies. Thus, transfer under Section 1407
: ' tion in maintaining a weight program is clearly necessary in order to prevent
that has more stringent requirements duplication of discovery. Any discovery
: for female flight attendants than for unique to a particular action arising
' male flight attendants and that is ap-- from differences among the actions can
- plied more strictly to female atiendants. be scheduled by the transferce judge io
And some of the complaints include gen- proceed. coricurrently with the common .
eral allegations of discrimination by Na- discovery	and thereby the litigation can
. tional in its promotional policies and job ‘proceed cxpeditiously in both arenas. to
classification systems. See It re Republic National-Reulty Eg-
: i. The Air Line Pilots Association, plaiutifi in ALPA and that action is now proceeding
. . ALPA, had initindiy sought cluss wetion relist solely on the basis of alleged injury to tha
on hehalf of its individual felunte flight at- union. , :
. tendant members employed by’ Natioual	yoy ° . :
2 i The court in the Seathern Disdrict of Fiori: © 2. Nutionai dispites the readiness for tviad of> A dn has, however, dismissed. tints portion of that ‘action. 5
: . . a
“. . - : . - : “i 3
hee NE

Case MDL No. 218 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3
® ) © IN RE NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC. MATERN. LEAVE PRAC,, ETC. 1407 .., _ Cite	as 399 F.Supp. 1403 (1975) .
, uities Securities Litigation, 382 F.Supp. nated or consolidated pretvial proceed- }
. 1403, 1405-06 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1974). ings under Section 1407 is to ensure the .
, Moreover, since the alleged class in most expeditious processing of the en- .
oo Cl Gardner encompasses the alleged elags in tire litigation. And if further pretrial a
: - Leonard, the need to eliminate the possi- proceedings are necessary in ALP,
bility of overlapping class determina- whether and to what extent they will be )
’ tions presents another compelling reason coordinated or consolidated with those
. to bring these actions together for pre- required in the other actions is solely | :
To . . trial in a single jurisdiction. See In re within the discretion of the transferee
Eastern Airlines, Inc. Flight Attendant judge. See In re Equity Funding Cor-
: © Weight Program Litigation, 391 F.Supp. poration of America Securities Litiga-
"0.763, 764 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1975) and In tion, 375 F.Supp 1378, 1384 (Jud.Pan.
! . re Roadway Express Employment Prac- Mult.Lit.1974). . . :
i tices Litigation, 384 F.Supp. 612, 613 Finally, we agree with National's sug-
i : (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1974). - gestion of the Southern District of Flor-
. 3 We fail to see how the class of Gard- ida as the appropriate transferee forum
HE ner plaintiffs will suffer any inconven- for this litigation. Three of the four
: v ience by transfer	to Florida inasmuch as actions in .this litigation are already -
- © we are advised that the majority of pending in that district and, since Na-
them reside there. Besides, there is tional is a Florida-based corporation, i
. usually no need for the parties and wit- many of the relevant documents and wit-
pe . nesses ever to travel to the transferee nesses are located there.
: { court for pretrial proceedings. See, e. - It is therefore ordered that the action
Po 9. FedRCiv.P. 45(d)(2). Further- on the following Schedule A pending in
oo ) . more, we are convinced that the Gardner the Eastern District of Virginia be, and .
® : plaintiffs will experience an overall sav- the same hereby is, transferred to theen © ings of expenses as a result of transfer Southern District of Florida and, with :
Te through cooperation with the other the consent of that court, assigned to
| . plaintiffs in this litigation in an effort the Honorable Norman C. Roettger,	Jr.
| Co to pool their resources with respect to for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
Co common discovery matters. proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
Po “Also, we are unable to determine from 1407 with the actions pending in that
: the record before	us whether, in fact, district and listed on Schedule A. :
. ALPA is ready for trial. Since the ac- : . :
tion, however, would be pending before * SCHEDULEA g
oo E the transferee .court regardless of the Eastern District of Virginia
transfer we are herewith ordering, we Barbara	fom Gardner, ot al." Civil Action : )
believe that the question of ALPA’s v. National Airlines, Inc. No. 75-329-A )
} readiness for trial is more properly .
presented to the transferee judge. In Southefn District of Florida
Co any event, we find that the Air Line Pi- for UeFlos Asodetin	oopen |
lots Association’s concern about Section fines, Inc.
. * 1407 proceedings interfering with a - Susan Gail Leonard, etc. v. Civil Action -
timely trial in ALPA is wholly without 3m Arne to, 7onio-on |
merit because the very nature of ¢oordi- tional Airlines, ‘Inc. - No.+75-785-Civ~JLK
Ia , - N . B Ny w . . }
. x - . .