Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

577 F.2d 869

Docket No. 77-1871.

Jarrell v. Eastern Airlines, Inc.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals

Argued May 2, 1978.

Decided June 13, 1978.

Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1978-06-13

2 counsel of record

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on 430 F. Supp. 884 - Jarrell v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1978-06-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently June 2014

8 federal appellate · 3 district ·

7019781980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1David R. Cashdan, Washington, D. C. (Kenneth V. Farino, James W. Benton, Jr., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants.

¶2Paul M. Thompson, Washington, D. C. (Christine H. Perdue, Richmond, Va., Richard P. Magurno, Herbert Prashker and Gordon J. Davis, New York City, on brief), for appellees.

¶3Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5This is an appeal from an adverse judgment rendered against plaintiffs by the court below after a full trial on the merits. Involved are three class actions, consolidated for trial, alleging that Eastern Air Lines’ weight control program for flight attendants violates Title VII1 by unlawfully discriminating against female flight attendants in its application and maintenance. On appeal, plaintiffs argue:

¶6(1) The District Court erred in denying plaintiff’s motion, made two weeks before trial, to amend the complaint and modify the class to include applicants.

¶7*870(2) The District Court erred in concluding that defendant’s weight program does not violate Title VII by discriminating on the basis of sex.

¶8(3) The District Court erred in concluding that defendant’s weight program has not been discriminatorily enforced in violation of Title VII against the class of females involved in this action.

¶9(4) The District Court erred in finding that Eastern’s failure to rehire plaintiff Sandra Jarrell was not the consequence of unlawful reprisals under Title VII.

¶10(5) The District Court erred in finding that plaintiff Carmen Chardon was not the object of unlawful reprisals by Eastern under Title VII.

¶11Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we affirm the result below on the basis of the District Court’s opinion, 430 F.Supp. 884.

¶12AFFIRMED.

/577/f2d/869 · .json · Public domain