IN RE: Delta Air Lines, Inc., Flight Attendant Weight Standards Litigation

LSE Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page (ps wwLA? )
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL snl WL
ON PLL LO
C | MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Cp IR
APR 15 10720
IN RE DELTA AIRLINES, INC. FLIGHT ) DOCKET. NO 230°
ATTENDANT WEIGHT STANDARDS LITIGATION ) Bit a
LE ep	N
a 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
In July 1974, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission filed an action (EEOC I) in the Southern
<P District of Texas against Delta Air Lines, Inc. This
action seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief against
Delta in favor of all its flight attendants, both male
and female, to prevent Delta's utilization of maximum
weight limitations that allegedly discriminate against
these employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. In particular, the Commission also
seeks the reinstatement of a Delta female flight attend-
ant, Virginia L. Curlee, who had been suspended because
of her failure to meet the maximum weight limitations.
The Texas court subsequently denied the Commission's
motion for a preliminary injunction and also denied

Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 9 - 3
- 2 = : :
the Commission's application for voluntary dismissal ®
of its action. :
In October 1974, the Mauzy action was filed
in the Eastern District of Louisiana against Delta by
two female Flight attendants presently employed by Delta, °*
on behalf of a nationwide class of all Delta's female
flight attendants employed since 1965, as well as those
female flight attendants who had been suspended or ter-
minated by Delta as a result of their failure to meet
the maximum weight limitations. In addition to challeng-
ing Delta's weight limitations as violative of Title VII,
plaintiffs in Mauzy allege that Delta discriminates
against its female flight attendants by not treating
pregnancy like any other disability and, instead, by ®
compelling pregnant flight attendants to take an unpaid
maternity leave. Upon motion	by Delta, Mauzy was trans-
ferred from the Eastern District of Louisiana to the
Southern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1404 (a). Mauzy was thereafter consolidated with EEOC I.
Plaintiffs in Mauzy have since filed a motion with the
Texas court to separate the weight and pregnancy issues
in that action and a motion to retransfer the action
in its entirety to the Eastern District of Louisiana.
We are advised that no ruling on either of these motions
has yet been made. oo
o
—

—" . Case MDL No. 230 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 9
~- 3 =
| In March 1975, the Commission instituted
a second action (EEOC II) under Title VII in the:
Northern District of Georgia against Delta claiming
that its maximum weight limitations discriminate
against female flight attendants. The Commission
this time requests relief in favor of female attend-
ants only and, in particular, also asks the court
to reinstate Martha Long, a female attendant previously
suspended by Delta for failure to meet the maximum
weight limitations. The Georgia court subsequently
stayed EEOC II pending completion of proceedings
in EEOC I in Texas.
<P In June 1975, the court in the SouthernDistrict of Texas permitted Virginia L. Curlee, on whose
behalf the Commission had requested specific relief
in EEOC I, to intervene in that action as a named
plaintiff. Her complaint in intervention is brought
as a class action on behalf of Delta female flight
attendants who were, have been or may be discriminated
against because of Delta's maximum weight limitations.
In August 1975, Maureen Cox instituted
an action against Delta under Title VII in the
Southern District of Florida, solely on her own
behalf, claiming that her suspension as a Delta flight
attendant resulted from Delta's discriminatory utili-
{ zation of its maximum weight requirements. The Florida

Case MDL No. 230 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	4 of 9 . .
- 4 ~-
court has since denied Delta's motion to transfer Cox ®
to the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§1404 (a) or, in the alternative, to permanently stay
proceedings in that action pending the outcome of the
Texas actions. Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary /
injunction in Cox, however, was temporarily stayed by
the Florida court to give Delta an opportunity to seek
transfer under Section 1407.
This matter is before the Panel on Delta's
motion to transfer Cox to the Southern District of Texas
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedngs,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, with EEOC I and Mauzy
pending in that district. The Commission favors | R
Section 1407 proceedings under the following conditions: ®
(1) The maternity leave claim in Mauzy should be separ-
ated from the remainder of that action and remanded to
the Eastern District of Louisiana under the proviso of
Section 1407 (a); and (2) The Northern District of
Georgia should be selected as the transferee forum.
The Mauzy plaintiffs,in the form of a motion, also
favor Section 1407 proceedings with certain conditions: :
(1) The maternity leave claim in Mauzy should be separ-
ated from the rest of that action; (2) The Northern
District of Georgia should be selected as the transferee
forum; and (3) EEQC II should be included in the coordi-
oo ®

. : Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 50f 9
- 5 =
C nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Plaintiff
Cox opposes inclusion of her action in any Section 1407
proceedings.
Plaintiff Cox argues that transfer of her action
is inappropriate because only minimal common factual issues
are involved between Cox and the rest of the litigation.
She emphasizes that Cox focuses on her need to resume
work and on specific acts of discrimination against her,
while the other actions center on class action and
company-wide issues. The other parties in this litiga-
tion, however, seem to agree that the criteria for
Section 1407 transfer are present, but disagree over
the appropriate transferee district, whether to include
9 EEOC II, and whether to include the maternity leave |
claim in Mauzy.
Although we recognize that these actions
may involve some common questions of fact, we find that
transfer under Section 1407 would not necessarily serve
the convenience of the parties and witnesses or promote
the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Accordingly, we deny the motionsto transfer as well as
the other requests by the Commission	and the Mauzy plaintiffs.
At the outset, we observe that since EEOC II
has been stayed pending completion of proceedings in
EEOC I, and since the outcome in EEOC I may have
a dispositive effect on EEOC II, little would be gained
®

Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 6 of 9 - Ce
-H =-
by its inclusion in Section 1407 proceedings. This leaves ®
Cox in Florida and EEOC I and Mauzy in Texas.
In our recent opinion in In re Braniff Airways,
Inc. Employment Practices Litigation, __ __ F. Supp. ___
(J.P.M.L., filed March 1, 1976), we found that transfer
of the actions then before us was inappropriate, and in
so doing, we examined several of our past decisions in
employment discrimination litigations. Our reasoning
in the Braniff Litigation leads us to the conclusion
that the requested transfer here should also be denied.
Like three of the four actions in that litigation,
Cox appears to involve chiefly allegations of discrimi-
natory treatment relating to the named plaintiff only. (N
In contrast, Mauzy and EEOC I, like the fourth action
in the Braniff Litigation, raise broader issues.
There may be some common areas of factual inquiry
between Cox on the one hand and EEOC I and Mauzy on the
other, but the focus on individual injury in Cox compared
to the broader concerns of EEOC I and Mauzy leads us
to conclude that Section 1407 treatment is unwarranted.
®

. - Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 7 of 9
- 7 =
® : The request for us to separate the maternity
leave claim in Mauzy and remand that claim to the:
Eastern District of Louisiana under the proviso of
28 U.S.C. §1407(a) is legally ill-founded. Section
1407 (a) provides, in relevant part:
Each action so transferred shall be
. remanded by the [P]anel at or before
the conclusion of such pretrial pro-
ceedings to the district from which
it was transferred unless it shall
have been previously terminated;
Provided, however, That the [Planel
may separate any claim, cross-claim,
counter-claim, or third-party claim
and remand any of such claims before
the remainder of the action is remanded.
It is clear from a reading of this portion of the Panel's
9 governing statute that the Panel's power of remand is
N restricted to remanding actions, or claims separated
therefrom, to transferor districts from which an action
was transferred under Section 1407. Thus, unless we
transfer Mauzy from the Southern District of Texas i
under Section 1407, we have no power to remand
this action or any of its constituent claims. And,
if we were to transfer Mauzy from the Southern
District of Texas under Section 1407, we could remand
the action or any of its constituent claims to the
Southern District of Texas only. Nor does the fact
that Mauzy was originally filed in the Eastern District

Case MDL No. 230 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	8 of 9 : ~
- 8 =
of Louisiana and subsequently transferred to the Southern C
District of Texas for all purposes under 28 U.S.C.
§1404 (a) make the Eastern District of Louisiana eligible
for remand of Mauzy or any of its constituent claims
under Section 1407.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion
to transfer the action listed on the following
Schedule A and pending in the Southern District of
Florida to the Southern District of Texas for ccordi-
nated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the
actions pending in that district and listed on
Schedula A be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion .
to transfer the actions listed on the following ®
Schedule A and pending in districts other than
the Northern District of Georgia to that district
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
with the action pending there and listed on Schedule A
be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
®

-- - Case MDL No. 230 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 9 of 9
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 230
® SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA: Civil Action
Maureen Cox v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. No. 75-1639-Civ.-CA
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Civil Action
Delta Air Lines, Inc. No. 75-404-A
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Civil Action
Delta Air Lines, Inc. No. 74-H-918
Lynn T. Mauzy, et al. v. Delta Air Lines, Civil Action
Inc. No. 74-H-918