Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CRUISE v. CAPITOL INTL. AIRWAYS

June 16, 1975

WILLIAM CRUISE, et al.
v.
CAPITOL INTERNATIONAL AIRWAYS, INC., et al.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEWCOMER

 Newcomer, J.

 We are presently faced with two summary judgment motions *fn1" on a limited issue in this case, namely, did defendants discriminate against men in hiring flight attendants after May 17, 1974? The Court has already found that defendants so discriminated prior to May 17, 1974. Memorandum and Order dated January 15, 1975. The issue is whether the uncontroverted facts show that defendants persisted in sex discrimination in carrying out the reconsideration of male job applicants ordered by this Court. We find that the undisputed facts establish that defendant Capitol Airways did discriminate against men, in violation of 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000-e(2)(a) and this Court's Order dated July 2, 1974, and that the entry of summary judgment on this issue is therefore appropriate.

 DISCUSSION

 Defendant Capitol Airways is a charter airline which did not employ men as flight attendants from 1964 until after the filing of the present suit. The remaining defendants are officers and/or agents of Capitol Airways. Capitol Airways' busiest months occur in the summer and early fall, and it consequently hires flight attendants in the spring and trains them in one two-week session in May. In preparing for the 1974 summer-fall season, Capitol hired 43 new flight attendants, all females, and scheduled a training session for late May, 1974.

 This suit was brought by two men, William Cruise and David Belasco, on behalf of themselves and all other men whom defendants denied employment as flight attendants solely because of their sex. Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the training of recently hired female flight attendants was heard almost immediately after suit was filed. In lieu of enjoining the training class for the 43 female attendants hired in May, 1974, this Court accepted the agreement of counsel that defendant Capitol would reconsider, on a non-discriminatory basis, the applications of named plaintiffs as well as all other males known to it who had submitted applications for positions as flight attendants.

 By a letter dated May 29, 1974, defendant Capitol informed the Court that it had reconsidered and again rejected the applications of plaintiffs Cruise and Belasco, and had not reviewed the applications of any other males because "economic considerations" precluded hiring any additional flight attendants for the 1974 season.

 Unimpressed with this performance, we scheduled another hearing and subsequently issued the following Order:

 
"It is Ordered that the Defendants:
 
i. Provide new application forms for the job of flight attendants to those males who have previously applied for the job and who request such application forms;
 
ii. Review such applications, on a nondiscriminatory basis, to determine which male applicant's qualifications for the job equal the qualifications of those female applicants accepted for training in 1974; such determination to be made within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Order;
 
iii. Accept all the above male applicants whose qualifications equal those of the female applicants accepted for training in 1974;
 
iv. Provide for the holding of a second training class for the benefit of any males accepted under the above procedures, such training class to be held within thirty (30) days of the acceptance of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.