Case: Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

3:74-cv-01884 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 20, 1973

Closed Date: Dec. 23, 1980

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Female employees of Pan American World Airways, Inc. brought this suit on August 20, 1973, in the Central District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They alleged that Pan Am had engaged in sex discrimination. Specifically, the named female employees claimed that when they became pregnant, Pan Am required them to take a pregnancy leave during a specific period and denied them employment benefits and seniority during their leave. The plaintiffs sought class certification, which was granted on January 24, 1977 by Judge William Schwarzer as to all female flight attendants who were employed by Pan Am after October 24, 1972. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 74 F.R.D. 24 (C.D. Cal. 1977). The case proceeded to trial, after which the District Court held that Pan Am's policies requiring commencement of leave upon pregnancy (Stop Policy) and continuation of leave for sixty days after birth (Start Policy) constituted prima facie sex discrimination but that both policies were justified as business necessities and bona fide occupational qualifications. The district court held that neither the seniority policy nor the sick leave policy constituted a prima facie violation. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 437 F.Supp. 413 (N.D. Cal. 1977), supplemented in 441 F.Supp. 881 (N.D. Cal. 1977)The class action plaintiffs did not appeal the district court's sick leave holding but did appeal the violation of the Stop and Start Policies and the Seniority Policy to the Ninth Circuit. In 1980, the Court of Appeals (Farris, J.) agreed with the District Court that the Stop Policy, although prima facie sex discrimination, was justified by safety considerations. It remanded for additional fact-finding on the Start Policy. It also held that the Seniority Policy constituted prima facie sex discrimination and instructed the district court to determine whether Pan Am established that its policy was justified as either a business necessity or a bona fide occupation qualification. Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 649 F.2d 670 (9th Cir. 1980). Judge Schroeder dissented, and would have held all three policies in violation of Title VII.The outcome of this action on remand is unknown.

	Document
3:74-cv-01884 72-00838 76-00512 74-01270 76-00079 74-02558 74-00224	Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California	Jan. 24, 1977	Jan. 24, 1977 Order/Opinion 74 F.R.D. 24
3:74-cv-01884	Memorandum and Decision of the Facts HARRISS V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California	Sept. 2, 1977	Sept. 2, 1977 Order/Opinion 437 F.Supp. 413
3:74-cv-01884	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM OF DECISION HARRISS V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California	Dec. 19, 1977	Dec. 19, 1977 Order/Opinion 441 F.Supp. 881
78-01214	Opinion HARRISS V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit	Dec. 23, 1980	Dec. 23, 1980 Order/Opinion 649 F.2d 670

Case: Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

3:74-cv-01884 | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Case Details