IN RE: Pan American World Airways, Inc., Maternity Leave Policies Litigation

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 7
oo ADDL PANEL
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANELHULUI: i mittsON n JUDIE SUR
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION KAR 29 1976
PATRICIA. HIV ARD
CLERK	OF THE PAREL
IN RE PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.)
MATERNITY LEAVE POLICIES LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 234
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD,
EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD, III,
STANLEY A. WEIGEL*, AND ANDREW A. CAFFREY, JUDGES OF THE
PANEL
PER CURIAM
Two actions commenced in two federal districts |
form the above-captioned litigation: Jacobs in the District
of the District of Columbia; and Harriss in the Northern 4
District of California. Both actions were originally brought
on behalf of a class of all past, present and future female
ground personnel of defendant Pan American World Airways, Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as "Pan Am"), who have been, are, or
may be adversely affected by defendant's allegedly discrimina-
tory employment practices; the purported class in Harriss
also consisted of all female flight attendants of Pan Am.
Jacobs was subsequently certified as a nationwide class on
* Judge Weigel recused himself and took no part
in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 7
. , ,
behalf of all Pan Am female ground personnel. Apparently
to avoid any overlap between the classes in the two actions,
and pursuant to a stipulation by the parties, the Harriss
plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint that confines
their putative class to female flight attendants. |
The complaints in both actions contain allega-
tions that defendant has violated and is continuing to violate
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Act of 1972 [42 U.S.C. §2000(e)	et seq.], by
maintaining sexually discriminatory employment policies.
Basically, these alleged discriminatory policies fall into
two categories: (1) the "stop-work" issue, whereby defendant
requires females employed as ground personnel to commence {
maternity leave upon completion of their seventh month of
pregnancy, and females employed as flight attendants to
commence maternity leave upon their being informed of their
pregnancy, while refusing to allow these flight personnel
to resume work until a specified time after the termination
of their pregnancy, all without regard to the female flight
or ground employee's individual ability to work for defendant;
and (2) the "benefits" issue, whereby defendant refuses female
ground and flight personnel on maternity leave the right to
treat pregnancy as a compensable illness, which, in effect,

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 7 :
. . ’ , ) -— 3 -
denies these females the use of sick leave and other employ-
ment benefits. Plaintiffs in both actions seek preliminary
and permanent injunctions to restrain Pan Am from continuing
these practices, judgments declaring that these practices
violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and compensating
seniority, back pay, sick pay and disability benefits.
Plaintiffs in both actions jointly move the Panel
for an order transferring Harriss to the District of the
District of Columbia for coordinated or consolidated pre-
trial proceedings with Jacobs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
Defendant Pan Am opposes transfer. We find insufficient
basis for transfer under Section 1407 and, accordingly, we
deny plaintiffs' motion.
Movants contend that transfer is proper because
common questions of fact exist between these two actions
relative to the "stop-work" and "benefits" issues.
Defendant Pan Am, on the other hand, asserts that the two
actions do not raise common factual issues since the
questions relating to ground personnel are distinct from
those pertaining to flight personnel. Defendant emphasizes
that Harriss involves solely flight attendants while Jacobs
involves only ground employees.
We question the extend of factual commonality
between Harriss and Jacobs since it appears that at least

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 7
-4 =
the "stop-work" issue for flight attendants is distinguish-
able from that issue as applied to ground employees. For
example, the safety factors and availability of medical
care are certainly different in the respective working
conditions. Cf. Newmon v. Delta Airlines, Inc. 374 F.
Supp. 238, 243 (N.D. Ga. 1973). But even viewing the
question of commonality in the light most favorable to
movants, we find that transfer under Section 1407 would not
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Only two actions are involved here. And whatever common
factual questions that may exist are in our view not
complex enough or the accompanying discovery so time
consuming as to justify transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey
Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543 (J.P.M.L. 1969).

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 5 of 7
= Ca
the "stop-work" issue for flight attendants is distinquish-
able from that issue as applied to ground employees. For
example, the safety factors and availability of medical
care are certainly different in the respective working
conditions. Cf. Newmon v. Delta Arilines, Inc., 374 F.
Supp. 238, 243 (N.D. Ga. 1973). But even viewing the
question of commonality in the light most favorable to
movants, we find that transfer under Section 1407 would not
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Only two actions are involved here. And whatever common
factual questions that may exist are in our view not
complex enough or the accompanying discovery so time
consuming as to justify transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey
Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. 543 (J.P.M.L. 1969).
Moreover, it appears that the District of Columbia
court has stayed all proceedings on the "benefits" issue
in Jacobs pending the United States Supreme Court's decision
in Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wetzel, Docket No. 74-1245,
cert granted, 43 U.S.L.W. 3624 (May 27, 1975). Since the
adjudication of Wetzel could have at least a partial
dispositive effect on Jacobs and Harriss, this provides
another reason for denying Section 1407 treatment at the
present time.

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 7
CL ..
Inasmuch as plaintiffs are represented by the same
counsel in both actions before us, if and when any commonality
arises between them, plaintiffs can take certain measures to
avoid unnecessary duplication. For example, plaintiffs could
file notices for a particular deposition in both the
California and District of Columbia courts, thereby making
the deposition applicable in each jurisdiction; plaintiffs
could seek a stipulation among the parties that all
discovery may be used in both actions; and plaintiffs
could seek orders from the two courts directing the parties
to coordinate their pretrial efforts. See also Manual for
Complex Litigation, Part I, §3.11 (rev. ed. 1973). Thus,
suitable alternatives to transfer under Section 1407 are
available to the movants in this litigation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to trans-
fer the actions listed on the following Schedule A be, and
the same hereby is, DENIED.
|

Case MDL No. 234 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 7
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 234
DISTRICT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mrs. Jane Margaret Jacobs, et al. v. Pan Civil Action
American World Airways, Inc. No. 1866-73
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Ute R. Harriss, et al. v. Pan American Civil Action
World Airways, Inc. No. C-74-1884-RHES