Employment Practices Decisions Archive: 1937 - 1995, EMPLOYMENT-PRACTICES 2 EPD ¶10,298, Pierre L. Schrichte, Plaintiff v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Defendant., (Aug. 31, 1970), (Aug. 31, 1970)

Pierre L. Schrichte, Plaintiff v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Defendant.

United States District Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.Civil No. 12615, August 31, 1970

Title VII--Civil Rights Act of 1964

Sex Discrimination--Airline Flight Attendant--Female Sex as Job Qualification.

--A male employee of an airline was not entitled to a summary judgment holding that the airline’s policy of restricting the position of flight attendant to females was unlawful on the basis of controlling legal principles and interpretations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that female sex was not a qualification for the job. The airline was entitled to an opportunity to prove its contention that the job qualification under attack was reasonably necessary to the operation of its business.

Howard Moore, Jr., Peter E. Rindskopf, Jack Greenberg and Vilma Martinez Singer, New York, New York, for Plaintiff.

Poletti Freidin Prashker Feldman & Gartner (Herbert Prashker, Peyton H. Moss and Lawrence A. Katz, of counsel) and W. Glen Harlan, New York, New York, Gambrell, Russell, Moye & Killorin (E. Smythe Gambrell and Charles A. Moye, Jr., of counsel), Atlanta, Georgia, and William G. Bell, Jr., Miami, Florida, for Defendant.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Stanley P. Hebert, Russell Specter and G. Maxine Bethel, of counsel), as Amicus Curiae.

EDENFIELD, D. J.: This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U. S. C. §§2000e, et seq.,) in which plaintiff alleges that Defendant Eastern Air Lines has denied him an opportunity to transfer to the position of Flight Attendant on the basis of his sex. Defendant has responded to these allegations by admitting that it did not transfer plaintiff to the Flight Attendant position partially because of its policy of restricting the position to females, but asserts furthermore that such practice is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of its business and therefore is specifically exempted from the prohibition of Title VII as a bona fide occupational qualification under 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(e)(1) . The case is now before the court on plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment requesting the court to hold that defendant’s policy of restricting the position of Flight Attendant to females is not a bona fide occupational qualification and in support of this contention plaintiff has submitted affidavits and answers to interrogatories which purportedly establish that plaintiff meets the objective qualifications which defendant requires for the Flight Attendant position. The EEOC has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff’s position.

Plaintiff contends that Eastern Air Lines cannot establish that sex is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job of Flight Attendant because controlling legal principles and EEOC interpretations require rejection of defendant’s defense and because the present record negates any proof defendant could offer at a later evidentiary hearing on the bona fide occupational qualification issue. Plaintiff’s contention that summary judgment can be awarded on this basis is utterly without merit. It is crystal clear that a material issue of fact exists as to whether the job qualification is reasonably related to the operation of defendant’s business. It is not the purpose of a motion for summary judgment to evaluate the evidence on a material issue of fact. Rather, the fact that such an issue is present precludes summary judgment. [1] Defendant is entitled to an opportunity to prove its contention that the job qualification which is being attacked is reasonably necessary to the operation of its business and may not be summarily deprived of that opportunity. [2]

Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is Denied.