Summary
holding that flight attendant weight control program was not discriminatory under Title VII because “there is nothing inherent in womanhood which makes Eastern's weight standards more difficult for women to satisfy than men”
Summary of this case from Bauer v. HolderOpinion
No. 77-1871.
Argued May 2, 1978.
Decided June 13, 1978.
David R. Cashdan, Washington, D.C. (Kenneth V. Farino, James W. Benton, Jr., Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellants.
Paul 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.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Judge.
Before RUSSELL, Circuit Judge, FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, and WIDENER, Circuit Judge.
This 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 VII by unlawfully discriminating against female flight attendants in its application and maintenance. On appeal, plaintiffs argue:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
(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.
(2) The District Court erred in concluding that defendant's weight program does not violate Title VII by discriminating on the basis of sex.
(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.
(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.
(5) The District Court erred in finding that plaintiff Carmen Chardon was not the object of unlawful reprisals by Eastern under Title VII.
Having reviewed the briefs and the record, we affirm the result below on the basis of the District Court's opinion, 430 F. Supp. 884.
AFFIRMED.