Appendix — Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Laffey

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States “

OCTOBER TERM, 1977

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,

Petitioner,

MARY P. LAFFEY, ef al.,

Respondents.

APPENDIX TO THE

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

a aes

. PHILIP A. LACOVARA

E GERALD GOLDMAN

: PETER M. KREINDLER

JAY KELLY WRIGHT

Hughes Hubbard & Reed

1660 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

Attorneys for Petitioner

Wasteegion. 0.C. ¢ CLE PUBLISHERS © LAW PRINTING CO. e (702) 393-0575

: ; z

i. ~ > , us . i fee thine ay 2° m ‘ we Fie ad A wt i a

saben ie Oe Wee tee a eee Meee: ale eee fea ek PF)

pay * -

S . :

i >

a . #

.” “ + = - = * ’

i > . PS a - ¥ r ar ~~ rey Se tal a ee Soe = wits é a> o® *

‘ = +} = af as h . Z » + ~~ 7 : : : > pat _ 7 ~ fu

= a Oe eae Te Fe PR ene Oe a ee BS Ee Ee ee +)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX A:

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the

District Court, dated November 12, 1973

CE ose was ay he'd 0 use 60 608

APPENDIX B:

Memorandum and Order of the District Court.

dated April 3, 1974 (374 F. Supp. 1382) .......

APPENDIX C:

Opinion of Court of Appeals, dated October 20,

Peer rt ee

APPENDIX D:

Judgment of Court of Appeals, dated October

RPE TTT er eee Tee Tee eT Ieee

APPENDIX E:

Order of Court of Appeals Amending Opinion,

dated September 8, 1977 ...................

APPENDIX F:

Order of Court of Appeals Denying Rehearing,

dated September 8, 1977 ..........ccccccces

Page

ee

APPENDIX A

Gnited States District Court

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civ. A. No. 2111-70

MARY P. LAFFEY et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Vv.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,

Defendant.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The above-entitled matter came on for trial before the

undersigned Judge of the above Court commencing on

December 4, 1972, and continuing thereafter until January

10, 1973.

Michael H. Gottesman, Esquire and Dennis D. Clark,

Esquire of Bredhoff, Barr, Gottesman, Cohen & Peer ap-

peared for the Plaintiffs. Gilbert Feldman, Esquire of Klei-

man, Cornfield and Feldman, counsel for Air Line Stewards

and Stewardesses Association, International, Transport

2a

Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, appeared for a por-

tion of the trial on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Henry Halladay,

Esquire and David A. Ranheim, Esquire of Dorsey, Mar-

quart, Windhorst, West & Halladay, appeared for the De-

fendant, Donald J. Capuano, Esquire of O’Donoghue &

O’Donoghue appeared for Air Line Pilots Association, Inter-

national on the first day of trial, and on one other occasion at

the close of trial to indicate a potential desire to present

evidence; no further appearance was made and no evidence

was presented by Air Line Pilots Association, International.

Karl W. Heckman, Esquire of the United States Department —

of Labor appeared for portions of the trial; no evidence was

presented by the Department of Labor.

Based upon the oral testimony at trial, the designated

deposition testimony submitted to the Court, exhibits intro-

duced by both parties, and all of the files, records and pro-

ceedings herein, the Court duly advised in the premises, in

accordance with Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Pro-

cedure, makes and enters its Findings of Fact, Conclusions

of Law and Order for Judgment as follows:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The named Plaintiffs are [or were] female cabin

attendant employees of Northwest Airlines, Inc. [herein-

after “NWA” or “the Company”],.and this action has been

certified as a class action on behalf of all NWA female cabin

attendants employed at any time from July 2, 1965 to the

present.

2. The Defendant, NWA, is an air carrier which was

formed in 1926, and it currently maintains its corporate

headquarters and main base at the Minneapolis-St. Paul

International Airport in Minnesota.

3a

3. NWA first began passenger service between Minne-

apolis-St. Paul and Chicago, and from 1927 to 1946,

extended its routes to other cities in the continental United

States. Virtually all of NWA’s flights cross state lines, and it

is engaged in interstate commerce. In 1947 NWA began

scheduled service to the Orient, and since that date has

increased the number of its routes within and without the

continental limits of the United States. NWA has used

various types of equipment to fly these routes over the years,

including (1) propeller driven equipment [DC-4, Strato-

cruiser, DC-6, DC-7] accommodating between approxi-

mately 25 and 100 passengers with a cabin crew complement

of two or three, (2) jet equipment [DC-8, 727, 720B,

707-320] accommodating between approximately 100 and

150 passengers with a cabin crew complement of five, and

(3) the new wide-bodied jet equipment, including the 747

and the DC-10, carrying as many as 362 passengers with a

cabin crew complement of as many as sixteen.

4. NWA’s international operations are extremely com-

petitive, much more so than its domestic operations. There

is no significant market in NWA’s international system that

is not competitive with at least two or more international

carriers. Most of these carriers are significantly larger than

NWA and also have the competitive advantage of operating

around the world, thus being able to carry through-traffic

beyond the New York and Hong Kong termination points

of NWA’s system.

5. Inanormal year not subject to the impact of a strike,

NWA handles approximately seven million passengers pro-

ducing gross revenues of approximately $450 million. This

ranks NWA approximately seventh among the eleven trunk

4a

carriers in the United States. From 1968 through 1970,

NWA lead all United States air carriers in annual net profits,

earning between 44.5 and 51.5 million dollars per year. In

1971, NWA was second in net profits with nearly 21.5 mil-

lion dollars, the drop being attributed to the effects of a

labor strike in the latter part of 1970.

6. All cabin attendants employed by NWA between

1927 and 1947 were females classified as stewardesses. The

company has continued to employ females in the stewardess

classification up to and including the present time. In 1947,

the Company established a cabin attendant classification

purser. From 1947 through June 15, 1967, the Company

followed an express policy of confining the purser job solely

to males. In 1949, the Company established a cabin attend-

ant classification of flight service attendant (FSA), which

has always been filled exclusively by males. The FSA classi-

ification was established when the Company began utilizing

a plane called the Boeing Stratocruiser, which had a sunken

bar lounge. The Company decided that a male cabin attend-

ant should be assigned to the bartending function (as well as

other cabin attendant duties) on this plane. Except for the

cocktail service on this plane, FSAs were hired to perform

the same duties that female stewardesses performed.

7. On December 17, 1946, the National Mediation

Board certified Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Asso-

ciation, International (hereinafter “ALSSA”) as the duly

designated collective bargaining representative of NWA’s

female cabin attendants. This certification subsequently was

amended on October 22, 1948, to provide that ALSSA also

was the duly designated representative of NWA’s pursers,

and again on June 20, 1950, to provide the same represen-

Sa

tative for NWA’s male cabin attendants. On July 7, 1961,

ALSSA having affiliated with the Transport Workers Union

of America, AFL-CIO, the National Mediation Board certi-

fied “Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association, Inter-

national, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO”

as the duly designated representative of all cabin attendant

and purser employees of NWA. In 1971 NWA’s cabin

attendants and pursers voted to replace ALSSA with Air

Line Pilots Association, International (hereinafter “ALPA”)

as their representative, and the National Mediation Board

so certified on September 17, 1971. ALPA has joined this

action as a “non-aligned party.”

8. At all times the membership of NWA’s cabin attend-

ant class or craft (including pursers) represented by ALSSA

or ALPA has been predominantly female, so that females

always have and still do possess a clear numerical superiority

over males in the affairs of the class or craft and the union

representative. The members are called upon to vote for

their representatives within the internal union structure, to

state their views and proposais in connection with collective

bargaining, to ratify new agreements, and otherwise to

participate in the process by which their rates of pay, rules

and working conditions are established.

9. Atall times from December 17, 1946 to date, NWA

has entered into collective bargaining negotiations and

agreements with the certified union representative, ALSSA

or ALPA, pursuant to the mandate of and the procedures

outlined in the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §151 et seq.

The agreements have covered all United States-based cabin

attendants and pursers, but not those based in the Orient

and assigned exclusively to flights within the Orient

[“interport” ].

6a

10. Since at least 1943, NWA has employed female

cabin attendants as “stewardesses.” In the first collective

bargaining agreement, dates September 19, 1947, a “stew-

ardess” was defined as:

... an employee who is respon .ble for the performing

or assisting in the performance of all enroute cabin

service, Or ground service, to delayed or canceled pas-

sengers, and shall include the responsibility for the

welfare, comfort, enjoyment and safety of the pas-

sengers, as prescribed by the Company regulations.

A salary was established for that position. The definition has

continued to the present, and the salary has increased over

time by union negotiation and agreement.

11. In 1947 when NWA obtained and began flying

routes to and through the Orient [see Finding 3], the purser

classification was established. In the first collective bargain-

ing agreement including pursers, dated January 1, 1949,

the position of “flight purser” was defined as follows:

“Flight Purser” means an employee on the inter-

national division whose work includes performing and

assisting in the performance of all enroute cabin serv-

ice, attending to passenger comfort, responsibility for

the preparation and completion of passenger, crew,

and cargo manifests and other reports and documents

as may be required by the Company or by law. A flight

purser may be designated to perform necessary duties in

connection with flight cargo operations, may be desig-

nated as being in charge of other cabin attendants, may

be required to accept special assignments related to

flight purser duties, and from time to time may be

requested to participate in publicity and promotional

assignments not in violation of any of the terms of this

Agreement.

7a

The definition of a “purser” has continued to the present

time. A salary was established for the purser position at a

rate higher than that for the stewardess position. The salary

for the position has increased over time pursuant to union

negotiation and agreement.

12. In 1949 NWA began hiring male cabin attendants

as “flight service attendants” [FSA’s] to fly particularly on

the Boeing Stratocruiser aircraft. They were to perform

essentially the same duties as female cabin attendants on

those and other flights. Effective with the 1951 collective

bargaining agreement, FSA’s were included in the definition

of “Stewardess” appearing in the earlier agreements, which

was carried forward thereafter.

13. Beginning with the 1951 collective bargaining

agreement and continuing thereafter to date, a combined

purser-FSA seniority list was created by virtue of which

FSAs began accruing seniority as pursers immediately upon

commencing their duties as FSAs.

14. From 1951 until the June 15, 1967 coiiective bar-

gaining agreement, FSAs had a contractual right to fill

purser vacancies in seniority order. From 1951 on, as per-

manent vacancies in the purser position arose, notices of

the purser vacancies were posted, addressed only to male

employees. At no time did the Company fail to award a

purser vacancy to the most senior FSA bidding for it. The

Company’s policy was that any FSA who had successfully

completed his FSA probationary period was thereby deemed

qualified for purser vacancies.

15. As temporary vacancies in purser positions arose,

FSAs were temporarily elevated to fill such vacancies and

received purser pay for doing so. When they were promoted

8a

to permanent purser positions, they received credit on the

purser pay scale for the time spent filling temporary purser

vacancies.

16. FSAs who choss to pass up promotional opportuni-

ties to purser and then later promoted to purser jumped

ahead for all seniority purposes, of junior employees who

had been promoted ahead of them.

17. The Company hired its last FSA in 1957 (the dis-

continued use of the Boeing Stratocruiser having eliminated

the Company’s interest in having FSAs). Between 1957 and

1964 all purser vacancies were filled by the promotion of

FSAs in the manner described above. By mid-1964, the

Company had exhausted the supply of FSAs who desired

elevation to purser positions. As subsequent purser vacan-

cies arose, the Company invoked its contractual right to

transfer “the most junior employee” to force the remaining

few FSAs who were based in Minneapolis to transfer to the

Seattle base and fill purser vacancies. By May 1965, there

remained only three FSAs, all voluntarily based in Honolulu

flying on military chartér flights for the United States Gov-

ernment, certain of which required the use of male cabin

attendants only.

18. As of May 1, 1965, just prior to the effective date

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Company

employed 48 male pursers, no female pursers, three male

FSAs, and 724 female stewardesses.

19. The last purser was hired by the Company on

April 25, 1970. As of that date, the Company employed 137

male cabin attendants, all as pursers, and 1,747 female

cabin attendants, all but one classified as stewardesses. (The

single female purser was Mary P. Laffey, who was promoted

9a

from the classification of stewardess effective October 4,

1967.

20. Between May 1, 1965, and May 1, 1970, the Com-

pany hired 118 new male cabin attendants, all of them as

pursers. During the same period, it hired 2,224 new female

cabin attendants, all of them as stewardesses.

21. Recently, NWA has hired several male cabin attend-

ants as “stewards” to perform the same duties as stew-

ardesses and FSA’s and at the same union negotiated and

agreed upon rate of pay. At all times from 1949 to the pres-

ent, FSA’s and stewards have been compensated at the same

rate as stewardesses of equal longevity. The single compen-

sation schedule provided by union contract for the cabin

attendant classification establishes periodic increments based

upon accumulated longevity in that classification. In addi-

tion to the basic compensation, cabin attendants engaged

in “foreign flying” [flights to or from foreign countries,

Alaska or Hawaii, excluding Winnipeg, Canada] have been

compensated either according to a separate schedule at a

higher rate or according to a specific hourly supplement.

Pursers receive no such supplement.

22. The Company and ALSSA engaged in collective

bargaining negotiations in 1963 and 1964, from which

eventuated the 1964 collective bargaining agreement. In

those negotiations, ALSSA sought a provision which would

permit stewardesses to progress to purser vacancies in se-

niority order after the last FSA who desired to become a

purser had done so. The Company refused to agree to this

proposal and it was not included in the 1964 agreement.

23. In 1966 and 1967, the Company and ALSSA

10a

engaged in the next round of collective bargaining negotia-

tions eventuating in the agreement which became effective

June 15, 1967. One of the Company’s opening proposals

was that a single “cabin attendant” classification be estab-

lished, in lieu of the three classifications of purser, FSA and

stewardess, and that the rate of pay for this single classifica-

tion be the rate then paid to stewardesses and FSA’s. The

Union opposed this proposal, and it was not adopted. One

of ALSSA’s proposals was that stewardesses be permitted to

progress to the position of purser in seniority order, as FSA’s

had in the past. The Company refused to accept ALSSA’s

proposal, but stated that it would agree to a provision per-

mitting stewardesses to bid for purser vacancies if the Com-

pany was allowed a right of “selectivity.” ALSSA acceded

to the Company’s proposal because it was convinced that it

was the most it could achieve. The provision as it appeared

in the 1967 agreement provided:

“d. Employees will be notified by posting on the

bulletin board of any vacancies occurring within the

purser classification. Stewardesses and flight service

attendants will be given consideration if they make

written application for any such positions. In consider-

ing the applications the Company will give considera-

tion, among others, to the employee’s past service

record, length of service, leadership ability, and test

results.” P-79, Sec. 9(d)).

This provision replaced the following clause which had

appeared in the 1964 agreement, as well as the preceding

agreements:

“d. Flight service attendants will be given an op-

portunity to qualify as a flight purser at any time the

Company desires provided that all promotions to the

.

re ene ey

- _

ane 4 ow oe

ee ase.

Status of flight purser shall be in the order of their

seniority subject to the provisions of this section.”

24. The opportunity for stewardesses to seek purser

vacancies under the 1967 agreement differed from the

manner in which FSAs previously filled such vacancies in

the following additional respects:

(a) The 1967 agreement contained a review pro-

cedure for stewardesses whose bids for purser vacancies

were denied, but that procedure was available only to

stewardesses who had “at least four (4) years of service

with the Company on flights to which a purser has been

assigned.” The Company insisted on this limitation to

discourage bids for purser vacancies by stewardesses who

did not have four years’ flying with a purser. A majority

of the Company’s male pursers became pursers without

having flown for four years on flights with a purser.

(b) Whereas the probationary period in the 1964

agreement and in the agreements prior thereto had been

“the first four (4) months of service as a flight purser,”

the provision was changed in the 1967 agreement, at the

Company’s insistence, to “the first six (6) months of serv-

ice as a flight purser.”

(c) The 1967 agreement left intact the combined

FSA-purser seniority list. The effect of this was that

stewardesses becoming pursers would go to the bottom

of the purser seniority list, whereas both before and after

1967 FSAs who became pursers received credit for their

years of FSA service on the purser seniority list. Seniority

on the purser seniority list determines the order of bidding

for schedules, vacation preference, the order in which

12a

pursers are laid off and recalled during reductions in force

and restorations in force, and priority in obtaining volun-

tary transfers to other bases. Additionally, those at the

bottom of the purser seniority list are subject to involun-

tary transfers from one base to another. The mos, junior

employees on the purser seniority list usually wind up with

“reserve” schedules. Reserve schedules are generally con-

sidered the least desirable, as the employee has no choice

of itinerary and must remain available at his telephone

for most of the month to be summoned on short notice.

(d) Although FSAs who had completed their proba-

tionary period were deemed qualified for purser vacancies

under the pre-1967 agreements, no similar policy was

applied with respect to stewardesses bidding under the

1967 agreement.

(e) Following the signing of the 1967 agreement, the

Company decided to “upgrade” its standards for selecting

pursers, and to place greater emphasis on the qualities of

supervisory capacity and leadership ability than it had in

the past. As part of this greater emphasis on supervisory

capacity, the Company decided to begin utilizing tests

which had not previously been utilized in the selection of

pursers. None of the tests administered to applicants for

any cabin attendant positions prior to 1967 had been

utilized by the Company to measure supervisory potential

or supervisory capacity. When FSAs progressed to purser

prior to 1967, they took no tests as a prerequisite to be-

coming a purser; following the signing of the 1967 agree-

ment, however, stewardesses seeking purser positions

were subjected to tests.

25. Stewardesses have been deterred from bidding for

purser vacancies since 1967 because:

fy

13a

(a) Under the terms of the agreement they would go

to the bottom of the purser seniority list, have last choice

in selecting schedules, have to fly reserve, have last choice

in selecting vacation time, be the first laid off in a reduc-

tion in force, and be subject to involuntary transfers to

other bases.

(b) If they are senior, under the terms of the agree-

ment they would not receive any greater pay for a sub-

stantial period of time than they would receive by remain-

ing a stewardess.

26. Following the signing of the 1967 agreement, the

NWA personnel office was instructed to consider steward-

esses for purser vacancies. It was not told to consider female

applicants other than stewardesses and it never did. Despite

a lack of well qualified applicants for the purser position, the

Company did not canvass the stewardess ranks, nor consider

applications from females who were applying for stewardess

positions. Rather, the Company resorted to advertising and

lowering of standards to recruit pursers from outside.

27. When the Company anticipated purser vacancies,

its practice was to hire men off the street, put them through

its five-week cabin attendant training program, and then

post notices of purser vacancies. These men were “assured

of a job.” If the Company awarded a purser vacancy to a

stewardess who bid for it, the result would be that the Com-

pany had a purser excess, and as future needs arose, no

vacancies would have to be posted.

28. Late in the Summer of 1967, without posting

notices of the existence of any purser vacancies, the Com-

pany hired five male applicants as pursers and entered them

14a

into its training program. These males were hired to fill

purser vacancies in October 1967. Laffey learned of the

hiring of the men and complained to Homer Kinney, the

Company’s Director of Labor Relations, that the hiring of

these men without posting notices of the purser vacancies

violated the 1967 agreement. Kinney acknowledged that

Laffey was correct, and a notice was posted on October 20

advising that five purser vacancies at the Seattle base were

available for bid, to be filled on or about November 10,

1967. Meanwhile, the five males had completed their train-

ing and were assigned to purser positions on October 4,

1967.

29. Two stewardesses bid for these vacancies; Laffey,

who had nine years seniority as a stewardess, and Shirley

Linburgh, who had 15 years seniority. Linburgh’s bid was

received a few hours past the bid deadline, and she was

advised that consequently her bid would not be considered,

despite the fact that five vacancies were posted and only two

cabin attendants bid for such vacancies.

30. Although the vacancy for which Laffey bid was to

be filled on approximately November 10, 1967, that date

passed without Laffey learning anything in response to her

bid. She inquired of R. R. McPherren, her supervisor.

McPherren wrote to Kinney on November 21, inquiring

about the delay in processing Laffey’s bid; Kinney responded

that the delay was because the Company was obtaining new

tests to be administered to purser applicants. While Laffey

was waiting, the Company hired two inore men as pursers,

without giving them the tests which (because not yet devel-

oped) were the stated reason for making Laffey wait. (Nor

were the five male pursers hired in October, 1967, given

these tests).

en

1Sa

31. Laffey received no response to her bid until April

1968, despite repeated demands by her that the bid be acted

upon. This was an unusually long delay for filling a posted

purser vacancy. On or about April 10, 1968, Laffey phoned

Kinney to remind him that it was now nearly 5 months since

the vacancy had been scheduled to be filled. Not until after

this inquiry did the Company begin to seek new tests to be

administered to purser applicants. Kinney instructed Virgil

Fencl, the Company’s Director of Employment, to obtain

such a test. Fencl then contacted Doctor Lowell Hellervik, a

testing specialist who provided regular consulting services

to the Company, and requested a short test which could be

used to identify supervisory potential in purser candidates.

Shortly thereafter, Hellervik recommended to Fencl that the

Company use a test called the “Self-Description Inventory,”

and submitted the test to Fencl on April 17, 1968. In May,

Laffey was finally tested and interviewed. In June, she was

sotified that her bid for the purser vacancy was granted.

She became the first and only female purser in NWA.

32. The Company initially advised Laffey that her

seniority date on the purser seniority list would be the date

of her actual assignment to the purser job in June, 1968.

Laffey protested that this would place her below the male

pursers who had been hired in October 1967, without the

posting of notices as required by the 1967 agreement, as

well as below the male pursers who had been hired in De-

cember 1967 while her bid was pending. Finally, the Com-

pany assigned her a purser seniority date of October 4, 1967.

33. For pay purposes, the Company placed Laffey on

the bottom step of the purser salary scale, and began paying

her a smaller salary than she had received as a senior stew-

16a

ardess. Laffey filed a grievance protesting that this violated

Section 3(i) of the 1967 agreement, which provided: “No

reduction in pay shall be suffered by an employee by virtue

of his accepting a purser assignment.” The Company ulti-

mately acquiesced and raised Laffey’s salary to that which

she had been receiving as a stewardess. Thereafter, the Com-

pany treated Laffey as moving one step up the purser scale

for each six months she served as a purser. It was not until

Laffey reached the fifth step of the purser salary scale that

she began to receive a higher salary than she had received as

a stewardess; until that point, she continued to receive her

stewardess salary pursuant to the “no reduction in pay”

provision.

34. Because Laffey was not siven credit for her years as

a stewardess when she was placed on the purser seniority list,

she occupied a relatively junior position on that list, and was

forced to bid the least desirable schedules, frequently having

to fly as a reserve purser.

35. In July, 1970, the Brotherhood of Airline Clerks

(BRAC), which represents certain of the ground personnel

employed by the Company, struck. The strike lasted until

mid-December, 1970. The Company fiew only a portion of

its flights during the strike. At the conclusion of the strike,

the Company decided to remove pursers from certain flights

on which it had previously used them. As a result, a number

of pursers were demoted to FSAs, and Laffey was demoted

to stewardess. As purser vacancies have arisen since Decem-

ber, 1970, they have been filled by the demoted pursers in

the order of their purser seniority. Because reductions in

force are governed by purser seniority, Laffey was one of

those who lacked sufficient seniority to remain as a purser.

a Ce

17a

From that date until the present, she has been reduced to her

former status as a stewardess and has been paid as such,

while men hired in 1965 and 1966 have continued to fly as

pursers. Had she been assigned a purser seniority date which

included her seniority as a stewardess (in the same manner

that FSAs who progressed to purser had their seniority as an

FSA included in their years of service as a purser), she would

have had sufficient seniority to remain as a purser at the time

of the reduction in force and at all times thereafter to the

present date.

36. Other stewardesses who submitted bids for purser

vacancies were refused.

(a) In late 1967, Alice Bernhard, a stewardess with

8% years of seniority, submitted a timely bid for a purser

vacancy to be filled in late December. Bernhard received

a letter from McPherren advising that her “qualifications

at this time are not sufficient” to be a purser. No tests were

administered to Bernhard, nor was she interviewed, prior

to the Company's rejection of her bid. She did not file a

grievance concerning the denial of the bid.

(b) In October, 1969, stewardess Carolyn A. Blair

(now Carolyn Ingold) submitted a timely bid for a purser

vacancy. On November 5, 1969, McPherren wrote to

Blair that her bid was rejected because her qualifications

were insufficient to be a purser. The Company neither

interviewed nor tested Blair prior to the sending of this

letter. Blair’s pre-employment interviews and tests, and

her cabin attendant evaluations, reflected that she was

mature, unusually intelligent, and a dedicated cabin

attendant. She did not file a grievance concerning the

denial of the bid.

18a

(c) In April, 1969, Janice P. Smith, a stewardess

with five years’ seniority, went to the Company’s Cabin

Service Office in Seattle, filled out an application for em-

ployment as a purser, addressed it to the Company's

general headquarters in Minneapolis, and left it for de-

livery in the intra-company mail. She received no re-

sponse to her application. In late 1969, Smith went to the

Seattle office and asked McPherren what was happening

with respect to her application. McPherren responded that

he was not aware that she had made an application. Smith

replied that she had, and asked if she could fill out another

application in McPherren’s presence, or file a letter of

preference. McPherren replied that she could not, and

that she would have to wait until a notice of purser va-

cancy was posted and bid at that time. Smith said that she

would rather leave an application, as she had not seer

notices in the past, and feared that she would miss them

and thus not be able to bid when purser vacancies arose.

McPherren told her that those not employed with the

Company, or employed in non-cabin-attendant positions,

could seek purser positions through such applications but

that stewardesses had to wait until a posted vacancy

appeared.

(d) On March 21, 1970, stewardess Beverly Emge

submitted a timely bid for a purser vacancy at the Wash-

ington base. No other bids were submitted for the vacan-

cy, and Emge was invited to Minneapolis (she was based

in Washington, D.C.) to be interviewed on April 17,

1970, by James Robertson, the Company’s Director of

In-Flight Services. Robertson told Emge that if she took

the vacancy she would be the junior purser and thus would

have no choice in her bidding assignments, that she would

i a

~ rr A eee ee

PEs anh | te ee re ne

19a

suffer a cut in pay, and that, as the junior purser, she

would be subject to being involuntarily transferred to

other bases. He told her that the Company was contem-

plating a reduction in the size of its Washington base, and

an expansion of its Honolulu base, so that Emge would

run a serious risk of being transferred to Honolulu if she

accepted the bid. Emge did not wish to leave the Wash-

ington, D. C. area. Based upon Robertson’s representa-

tions that her acceptance of the purser vacancy rnight re-

sult in her involuntary transfer to Honolulu, she was

doubtful whether to take it. Robertson told her that she

had to decide immediately, as there was a male cabin

attendant at another base who was anxious for the va-

cancy. Emge said she would withdraw her bid, and Rob-

ertson had her sign a letter, which was already prepared

and typed, withdrawing her bid.

1. Three days later, the Company posted a notice

announcing yet another purser vacancy at the Wash-

ington base, to be filled on or about May 2, 1970. Upon

seeing this posting, Emge had a change of mind and

accordingly, on April 23, 1970, submitted a bid for

this new purser vacancy at the Dulles base.

2. The notice had stated that bids had to be sub-

mitted no later than noon Pacific Daylight Time on

May 1, 1970. By the close of business on April 30,

Emge’s was the only bid for this vacancy. Early in the

morning of May 1, 1970, at or prior to 7 a.m. Hono-

lulu time, Chalmers Hunter, a purser based in Hono-

lulu, phoned In-Flight Supervisor Jack Gulett, who

was staying at a Honolulu hotel, and indicated a desire

to transfer to Washington, D.C. Gulett advised Hunter

that there was a vacancy for which bids had to be sub-

20a

mitted that very day. Hunter said that there was no way

he could transmit a bid so that it would be received by

the Company in Seattle by the 12 noon deadline (12

noon Seattle time is 9 a.m. Honolulu time). Gulett said

that he would try to utilize the Company’s teletype

equipment for that purpose. Gulett phoned the Com-

pany’s crew scheduling office in Honolulu and instruct-

ed an employee “to get the bid on the machine immedi-

ately.” The teletype operator types the time of trans-

mission on the message. Gulett told him that the bid

“had to be dated before noon Pacific time to be valid.”

According to the Company’s records, the bid was re-

ceived in Seattle at 11:53 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time.

Later that day, the Honclulu office received a reply

teletype from Seattle announcing that Hunter was the

successful bidder for the vacancy.

3. Emge’s seniority date is September 29, 1961.

Hunter’s seniority date is November 16, 1969. On the

ground that she had greater seniority, Emge filed a

grievance protesting the award of the purser vacancy

to Hunter. The Company, thru Robertson, construed

the 1967 and subsequent agreements as according jun-

ior pursers priority over senior stewardesses if both bid

for the same purser vacancy and accordingly, denied

the bid.

37. From the time the purser classification was estab-

<n By ee m

2la

(b) Oriental officials, passengers and cabin attendant

were conditioned by custom and mores to deal with and

accept leadership and direction of males rather than

females.

(c) It was considered important to have male pursers

on the) transpacific flights to cope with rowdy seaman

crews.

(d) Lifting of heavy cargo, food, galleys, baggage

could best be performed by males.

(e) During the period from 1963-1970, NWA flew

certain military charter flights out of Honolulu on which

only males could be used pursuant to United States Gov-

ernment contract and specifications.

(f) An interest in having pursers once trained remain

with the Company to avoid need for special purser train-

ing and turnover on international routes, the Company

experience being that males were more career oriented

and more likely to remain with the Company (turnover

rate among NWA’s female cabin attendants three times

greater than male cabin attendants).

38. The Company sought to effect its desire to confine

the purser position to males in the following ways:

1) Between May 1, 1965 and May 1, 1970, hiring

119 new pursers, only one of whom was a stewardess

a. >

os ta. OP pipe le ee ea ll

. ‘

(Plaintiff, Laffey) and during same period hiring 2,244

new female cabin attendants. As of April 25, 1970, NWA

employed 137 male cabin attendants, all as pursers, and

1,747 female cabin attendants, all but one as stewardesses.

lished in 1947 until June 15, 1967, NWA exclusively hired

males for the purser position. The Company desired to con-

fine the purser position to males for the following reasons:

(a) A belief that males could more adequately per-

form the supervision and conducting job of the purser. 2) Top Company personnel were explicit and candid

22a

in expressing personal and Company preference tor male

pursers and discouraging stewardesses who applied.

3) Inordinate and unusual delay in processing the

bid of Plaintiff, Laffey, the only female applicant to sur-

vive an immediate or perfunctory rejection.

4) Disqualification of stewardesses without interview

or tests and despite their experience as cabin attendants.

5) Posting notices of pursers vacancies addressed

expressly to male employees (“to all purser and FSA’s”).

6) Failing to consider stewardess applicants for purs-

er positions no matter how well qualified.

7) Hiring and training new pursers in anticipation of

purser vacancies, then posting notice of vacancies and

thus assuring jobs to new pursers rather than awarding

vacancies to possible applicants from the stewardess ranks.

39. Qualifications and requirements for female cabin

attendants have differed from male cabin attendants as

follows:

1) Female cabin attendants, when hired, sign a form

stating: “I understand that among the qualifications and

requirements of a stewardesses’ position are . . . weight

in proportion to height, that failure to maintain such qual-

ifications . . . will be cause for termination of my employ-

ment.” Male cabin attendants are not required to sign

such a form when hired. When hired, female cabin atten-

dants are given a specific weight at which they must

report for training; if they arrive at training more than

one pound over this prescribed weight, they may be dis-

missed from class. No such requirement is imposed upon

male cabin attendants hired.

23a

2) The Company’s Cabin Service Manual contains

a table of prescribed weights to which female cabin

attendants must adhere. Prior to the trial in this case no

such weight chart existed for male cabin attendants. All

female cabin attendants are weighed on a regular basis

at least two times per year, and are also weighed when-

ever they appear overweight. No such periodic weighing

of male cabin attendants takes place.

3) Female cabin attendants who exceed the weight

prescribed in the cabin service manual by more than five

pounds are advised that they will be grounded and ulti-

mately terminated, unless they return to their prescribed

weight within a specific period of time, if they do not

return to their prescribed weight they are grounded (i.e.

suspended from employment and not permitted to fly)

until they have returned to their prescribed weight. Sub-

stantial numbers of female cabin attendants have been

grounded for exceeding their prescribed weight, and in

some instances even terminated.

4) The Company does not regularly monitor the

weight of its male cabin attendants, and they have con-

tinued to fly even if substantially overweight, without

being ordered to lose weight, without being placed on

weight check, and without being threatened with ground-

ing or termination. Only rarely have overweight male

cabin attendants been placed on weight check (since the

effective date of the Civil Rights Act, only three male

cabin attendants have been placed on weight check, and

of these, two were placed on weight check after the filing

of this lawsuit); and only one maie cabin attendant has

been grounded, for a period of one week, for failure to

24a

maintain an appropriate weight. In each of these rare

instances the male attendants involved were very sub-

stantially overweight, and were permitted to continue fly-

ing even though they did not reduce their weight anywhere

near that suggested (or even gained additional weight).

5) The Company has always required female cabin

attendants to share hotel rooms on lay-overs away from

their home base.

6) Since at least 1964, male cabin attendants have

been provided with single rooms on lay-overs. This has

been so, for the most part, even where two or more male

cabin attendants have been on the same flight. In April

1971, the Company issued a bulletin purporting to remind

male cabin attendants “of a Company policy which has

existed for many years that when there are two male cabin

attendants on a crew, they will share a room at lay-over

points.” However, the Company rarely, if ever, enforced

such a policy, in that even when two male cabin atten-

dants were on the same flight, they obtained single rooms

which the Company paid for without objection to the male

cabin attendants. On most interport flights (flights beyond

Tokyo) there is one male American purser and one male

' Asian flight service attendant, but they have not been

required at any time to share rooms.

7) The Company maintains a rule forbidding all fe-

male cabin attendants from wearing eyeglasses, but does

not maintain such a rule with respect to male cabin atten-

dants hired prior to September, 1971.

8) Female cabin attendants are subject to discipline,

including possible discharge, for violating the Company’s

rule forbidding them to wear eyeglasses.

CR te tn ee here ne Je Slide Dalle Sei linet tell Mine Os Pw oe oe

.

a

,.

25a

9) Female cabin attendants are permitted only to

wear contact lenses, which are substantially more expen-

sive than eyeglasses with lenses of comparable quality.

10) At all times, female cabin attendants wishing to

carry luggage aboard the plane have been required to

purchase luggage strictly prescribed as to brand, size and

color.

11) At no time have male cabin attendants been

restricted in their choice of luggage, other than that it be

“in good condition.”

12) The 1970 collective bargaining agreement pro-

vided that male cabin attendants (pursers and FSAs)

were to receive a uniform cleaning allowance of $13.00

per calendar quarter. Female cabin attendants did not

receive this allowance.

13) Prior to June 21, 1972, the Cabin Service Man-

ual provided that the “chain of command” aboard the

aircraft, after the cockpit crew, was ‘purser, then other

male cabin attendant if one assigned, and then steward-

esses in seniority order. On June 21, 1972, the Manual

was changed to provide an order of purser, and then

stewardesses or flight service attendants in seniority order.

14) Prior to September 1, 1971, the Company did

not hire females as cabin attendants if they were taller

than 5’9”. The maximum height for females was raised to

60” on September 1, 1971. The maximum height for

male cabin attendants was 6'0” at the time when the maxi-

mum for females was 5’9”.

15) From the beginnirz of its operation until June

15, 1967, the Company followed a policy of terminating

26a

all female cabin attendants when they married. It never

had such a rule with respect to male cabin attendants.

Despite a series of EEOC findings of probable cause, be-

ginning in December, 1965, that this policy violated Title

VII, the Company resisted changing its marriage rule

until the conclusion of collective bargaining negotiations

resulting in the June 15, 1967 agreement. At that time it

agreed to abandon the policy, and to reinstate only those

stewardesses terminated since the effective date of Title

VII, and then only if they applied for reinstatement within

three weeks of the ratification of the agreement and if

they waived all claims to back pay.

16) From the beginning of its operations until 1971,

the Company had a policy forbidding the hiring of mar-

ried females as cabin attendants. It has never had such a

rule with respect to hiring male cabin attendants. Despite

an EEOC finding of probable cause, in June 1969, that

this policy violated Title VII (and despite earlier EEOC

findings of probable cause concerning the policy of termi-

nating female cabin attendants when they married), the

Company persisted in following this non-hire policy until

February, 1971, when it entered into a conciliation agree-

ment with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights

to abandon the policy.

17) From 1956 until the June 15, 1967 agreement,

the Company had a rule forbidding female cabin atten-

dants from flying following their 32nd birthday. It never

had such a rule with respect to male cabin attendants. In

September 1968, the EEOC, in response to a charge filed

in August, 1966, found probable cause to believe that the

age 32 policy was a violation of Title VII. Between late

27a

March, 1970, and mid-June, 1970, at least 32 steward-

esses filed charges with the EEOC alleging that the Com-

pany was discriminating on the basis of sex in its treat-

ment of female cabin attendants. On July 14, 1970, the

EEOC sent “Notice of Right to Sue” to at least six of these

charging parties, all of whom are named plaintiffs in this

action.

40. The diverse types of flight itineraries which the

Company operates, or has operated in the past, are described

below:

(a) Pure domestic commercial flights are those reg-

ularly scheduled commercial flights which both begin and

end in the United States, and do not continue on to the

Orient.

(b) Domestic segments of international commercial

flights. Since 1959, most of the Company's transpacific

flights have originated in one U.S. city (generally on the

East Coast), fly to the West Coast of the United States,

and then to on to the Orient. Such flights return from the

Orient to the West Coast, and then go on to the East

Coast. Those portions of such flights which both begin

and end in the United States are referred to as “domestic

segments of international flights” or “domestic segments.”

(c) Transpacific commercial flights. The Company

has flown regularly scheduled transpacific commercial

flights between Anchorage and Tokyo since 1947, be-

tween Seattle and Tokyo since the early 1950s, and be-

tween Honolulu and Tokyo since August, 1969.

(d) Commercial interport flights ace those regularly

scheduled flights between Tokyo and the other Asian

28a

cities serviced by the Company (presently Osaka, Oki-

nawa, Seoul, Taipei, Manila and Hong Kong).

(e) Military Air Charter (MAC) flights. For many

years the Company has contracted with the U. S. Govern-

ment to provide regularly scheduled military air charter

flights between various cities and/or military bases. Such

service has included pure domestic, domestic segment,

transpacific, and interport flights. In addition from 1963

through June 1970 the Company provided MAC flights

between Hawaii and several military bases in the Coral

Islands in the Pacific.

(f) Commercial charter flights. In addition to its reg-

ularly scheduled flights, the Company frequently enters

into agreements to provide commercial charter flights.

Such service has included pure domestic, domestic seg-

ment, transpacific, and interport flights.

41. The diverse flight itineraries described above have

been manned by cabin attendants in various manners. Some

of the Company's flights are scheduled to be flown exclu-

sively by stewardesses and FSAs. Some are scheduled to be

flown by one purser and the rest stewardesses and FSAs.

Some have been scheduled to be flown by more than one

purser. Purser utilization on these various types of flights is

described below:

(a) In general, pure domestic commercial flights

have always been scheduled to be flown exclusively by

stewardesses and FSAs. The major exceptions where

pursers have been used are listed below:

(1) Between 1949 and 1954, the Company regu-

larly scheduled a purser on each of its flights between

29a

Seattle and Honolulu, and in recent years pursers in-

termittently have been scheduled on such flights; also,

throughout 1970 pursers were regularly scheduled on

certain pure domestic flights between Seattle and

Honolulu.

(2) Throughout 1970, in an effort to enhance its

service and competitive position the Company regu-

larly scheduled a purser on its flights from Honolulu

to Chicago and New York and return.

(3) At various times, in order to “position” purs-

ers Or to have pursers work while “dead heading,” the

Company regularly has scheduled purse:rs on some or

all of its flights between Seattle and Anchorage.

(4) In emergency situations in which there is a

shortage of available cabin attendants, due to illness,

strikes, special holiday or weekend plans, or other fac-

tors, the Company has utilized reserve pursers, pursers

on “time available,” and pursers volunteering for over-

time assignments on pure domestic flights which norm-

ally do not utilize pursers.

(b) From 1959 through 1970, the Company regu-

larly scheduled one purser to each domestic segment of an

international flight. The itineraries flown by pursers on

domestic segments, and the periods during which pursers

were regularly scheduled on such itineraries, were as

follows:

(1) June, 1959-July, 1970: from Anchorage to

either New York or Washington, D.C. (with intermedi-

ate stops) and return.

30a

(2) 1960-December, 1970: Seattle to New York

(with intermediate stops), and return.

(3) Approximately 1968 or 1969-mid 1970:

Seattle to Philadelphia (with intermediate stops), and

return.

(4) August 1, 1969-December, 1970: San Fran-

cisco and Los Angeles to Honolulu and return.

(c) One purser normally has been scheduled at all

times to fly on each transpacific commercial flight.

(d) From 1947 to 1952, the Company’s interport

flights were manned with one American purser, as well as

one American stewardess. From 1952 to 1957 no Ameri-

can cabin attendants flew on interport flights; they were

manned exclusively by Asian cabin attendants based in

Tokyo. Since 1957, one American purser normally has

been scheduled on each interport flight, with the rest of

the crew consisting of Asian cabin attendants.

(e) The Company always has scheduled at least one

purser on each MAC flight, whether it be pure domestic,

a domestic segment, transpacific or interport. Purser utili-

zation on the Coral Island MAC flights (and the pure

domestic MAC flights between Hawaii and California) is

described in (f) below.

(f) From the inception of the Coral Island MAC

flights (and the pure domestic MAC flights between

Hawaii and California) in 1963 until October, 1969, at

least one, and often two pursers were assigned to each

flight. From October, 1969 until June, 1970 (when the

Company lost its contract for such flights), the entire 3

to 5 member cabin attendant crews on such flights con-

3la

sisted solely of pursers. From 1963 until June 1970, a

small group of pursers and FSA’s were based in Honolulu

to fly the Coral Islands military flights. In addition, for

reasons of both economics and experience, these individu-

als were used to fly on the military charter flights between

Hawaii and California. The very small size of the Hono-

lulu base presented special scheduling problems, even on

a regular basis but particularly in emergency situations,

and thus more than one purser may have worked on given

flights. This was especially true from October 1969 until

June 1970, as a result of the fact that all FSA’s at the

Honolulu base were upgraded to purser for reasons of

economics, expedience and relations with NWA’s mili-

tary contract customers. However, paying more than one

individual as a purser, pursuant to its established policy

[see Finding 34], still was less costly than increasing the

number of cabin attendants based at Honolulu with re-

sulting underutilization of their time and the payment of

special monthly station allowances.

(g) A purser normally has been scheduled on all

transpacific and interport commercial charter flights, on

all domestic segments of international charter flisjuts (un-

til December, 1970), and, occasionally, on pure domestic

charter flights. NWA does so only if it receives a specific

request from the charter group for a purser or supervisory

individual, or on those special occasions when (1) pursers

are the only ones available to take the flights, or (2) the

positioning of pursers for other flights makes it both

economic and expedient to have them fly the domestic

charters.

42. The Company mans its international flights such

32a

that a particular cabin attendant crew (including the purser

if one is aboard) flies only one segment of a flight. Thus, one

crew will fly the domestic segment, another the transpacific

leg, and a third the interport portion. NWA has maintained

cabin attendant bases at the following cities during the des-

ignated periods: Seattle (at least 1947 to date); Minneapolis-

St. Paul (at least 1947 to date); Honolulu (1963 to Septem-

ber, 1971); and Washington, D.C. (approximately 1960 to

September, 1971). Pursers have been (or were) based in

Seattle from 1947 to date, in Minneapolis-St.Paul from

1947 to 1962, in Washington, D.C. from June 1969 to July,

1970, and in Honolulu from 1963 to September, 1971.

Stewardesses have been (or were) based in Seattle and

Minneapolis-St. Paul from at least 1947 to date, and in

Washington, D.C. during the entire period that base was

open. NWA also maintains cabin attendants bases in the

Orient, at which are assigned all of the Asian cabin attend-

ants who fly on the interport flights.

43. Each month, the Company constructs cabin attend-

ant schedules, representing the itincrary to be flown by a

cabin attendant during that month. Separate schedules are

constructed for each cabin attendant base. At each base,

separate schedules are constructed for pursers and for non-

pursers (i.e., stewardesses and FSAs). The employees in

each classification bid for schedules at their base in order of

their seniority. Generally, purser schedules are (or have

becn) constructed such that all of an individual’s flights in

a given month will be of the same type, i.e., all MAC, all

domestic segments, all pure domestic, all transpacific, or all

interport (plus transpacific).

44. The Company sought and obtained a provision in

33a

the 1967 collective bargaining agreement, entitling it to

assign “foreign national” (Asian) stewardesses to the Seattle

base irrespective of seniority, and to assign one foreign na-

tional stewardess to each transpacific flight irrespective of

seniority. (The 1970 agreement changed the phrase “foreign

national stewardess” to “stewardess proficient in the Japa-

nese, Korean or Chinese language.”) The Company desired

to have foreign nationals on its transpacific flights: (a) to

have a foreign language proficiency on the flight, (b) to

improve the Company’s relations with the Asian Govern-

ments with which it has to deal, and (c) to attract Asian

passengers. Separate monthly flights schedules are con-

structed for foreign national stewardesses, designed to place

one foreign national on each transpacific flight. Foreign

nationals are permitted to bid and fly only on these separate

schedules. Foreign national stewardesses, who are covered

by the collective bargaining agreement, receive the same

salaries as other stewardesses of equal seniority, despite their

language proficiency and the restricted schedules which they

are permitted to bid.

45. The Company and ALSSA engaged in negotiations

in 1969 and 1970 which culminated in the March 1, 1970,

collective bargaining agreement. In these negotiations,

ALSSA proposed that stewardesses be allowed to progress

to purser vacancies in seniority order; that stewardesses who

become pursers be credited with their full cabin attendant

seniority; and that stewardesses who become pursers be

slotted into the purser pay scale on the basis of their total

cabin attendant seniority. The Company refused to agree to

any of ALSSA’s proposals. Its chief negotiator stated that

the Company “prefers males and intends to have them” and

that the Company “wants men because of their leadership

34a

ability.” The highest ranking female employed by the Com-

pany in any capacity is a reservations supervisor. There are

200 to 300 men employed at levels above this highest rank-

ing female.

46. On most of the Company’s commercial flights, serv-

ice is offered in two categories: first class and tourist class.

The first class and tourist class capacities of the various

planes presently used by the Company are as follows:

Class Class. Total

Plane Passengers Passengers Passengers

727-100 24 69 93

727-200 26 96 122

720B 16 93 109

707-320B 22 118 140

707-320C 22 120 142

747 58 304 362

47. The essential differences in service provided to the

passengers in first class and tourist class are as follows:

(a) The seats and the aisles in the first class section

are larger.

(b) A better quality of food service, served some-

what more elaborately, is provided in the first class sec-

tion. |

(c) Liquor normally is served free in the first class

section, while passengers in the tourist section must pur-

chase liquor.

(d) The number of passengers per cabin attendant is

higher in the tourist section then in the first class section.

48. FAA regulations require that the various planes

35a

used by the Company carry at least the following number

of cabin attendants irrespective of passenger loads:

727-100 2

747 8

Allothers 3

The Company’s present policy is to schedule each flight with

the minimum of cabin attendants permitted, and to add addi-

tional attendants only if there are exceptionally heavy pas-

senger loads. However, at least one additional cabin attend-

ant is always scheduled on interport flights, so that there are

more cabin attendants on such flights than on other flights

with the same passenger load. The same number of cabin

attendants (pursers, stewardesses and FSAs) is assigned to

particular aircraft with particular passenger loads, whether

or not a purser is one of the attendants, and regardless of

the type of flight, i.e., pure domestic, domestic segment, or

transpacific (except interport).

49. In general the passenger loads in first class are

smaller relative to capacity than those in tourist class, and

generally, the commercial flights on which pursers regularly

are scheduled have smaller passenger loads relative to ca-

pacity than the flights on which pursers are not scheduled.

On non-747 aircraft, generally one cabin attendant works in

first class and two in the tourist cabin. On the 747, generally

two or three attendants work in first class, with five or six

in tourist.

50. The relative “work pace” or “work load” of pursers

and cabin attendants depends upon a number of variables,

including the position being occupied by the individual in

the cabin, the type of equipment, the length of the flight, the

36a

number of passengers and the number and allocation of the

cabin attendants. The smaller passenger load per cabin

attendant in the first class section (where the purser works)

normally results in a more leisurely work pace than in the

tourist section. The workpace and workload on cabin at-

tendants is normally greater on “short hop” schedules than

on longer segment flights.

51. Virtually all duties assigned to cabin attendants are

performed by all cabin attendants, regardless of classifica-

tion. In general, cabin attendants are responsible for mak-

ing pre-departure checks of the cabin; greeting and seating

passengers; securing the cabin for take-off; providing food

and beverage service, tending to passenger needs; briefing

passengers on emergency procedures; guiding and assisting

passengers in the event of emergencies; completing required

documentation; answering passenger questions; keeping the

cabin in a neat and orderly condition, before, during, and

after the flight; insuring that passengers conform to re-

quired regulations; and deplaning passengers.

52. One of the most important (if not the most impor-

tant) responsibilities of all cabin attendants is insuring, to

the greatest extent possible, the safety of passengers in the

event of an emergency. All cabin attendants must have

detailed knowledge of first aid techniques and be able to

deal on an instantaneous basis with a myriad of medical

emergencies in flight. All cabin attendants are required to

possess a thorough knowledge of emergency procedures and

equipment on each type of aircraft the Company operates.

To this end (a) a great portion of a cabin attendant’s initial

pre-hire training is devoted to emergency procedures and

equipment; (b) every year each cabin attendant is required

to complete an Emergency Recurrent Training course and

37a

pass examinations related thercto (or be grounded); (c) each

attendant must take a training course in aircraft familiariza-

tion each time a new type plane is put into use; (d) pre-

departure emergency briefings are conducted by the Senior

Cabin Attendant prior to every flight; (e) ech attendant is

required to have thorough knowledge of the voluminous and

detailed emergency instructions contained in the Cabin

Service Manual; and (f) cabin attendants periodically are

evaluated by means of unannounced check rides by super-

visors, which include testing.on emergency procedures and

equipment.

53. Aside from doing everything possible to insure pas-

senger safety in the event of an emergency, the most impor-

tant aspect of the job of all cabin attendants, whatever their

classification, is acquiring and maintaining the goodwill of

the Company’s passengers. The Company is in the business

of, and derives its revenues and profits from, transporting

persons from one place to another. The success of the Com-

pany depends upon the goodwill of the passengers, the con-

fidence they have in its ability to perform the services offered

and the respect they have toward the Company. All cabin

attendants play an extremely important part in dealing with

the public since they are in contact with the passengers for a

prolonged period of time, indeed, for far greater periods of

time than any other Company representatives. Thus, no

matter which particular duty a cabin aticndant is performing

at a particular time, as it involves passenger contact the

cabin attendant must exercise a high degree of poise, tct,

friendliness, good judgment and adaptability.

54. The type and quality of food service offered by the

Company varies greatly between its flights, and between

38a

first and tourist class sections. The Company offers the fol-

lowing types of food service:

(a) Pre-set casserole service, which is boarded onto

the aircraft in pre-set fashion, and requires the cabin

attendants to heat the entree item in an oven aboard the

aircraft, place it upon the pre-set tray, and deliver the

entire meal at one time on a tray to the passenger.

(b) Out-of-galley china course service in which the

food is loaded aboard the aircraft in bulk, heated by the

cabin attendants in bulk, and is dished onto china dinner-

ware by the cabin attendants and carried from the galley

to the passenger. The meal is served in various courses.

(c) Cart service, which is virtually identical to out-

of-galley china course service, except that each course is

served to the passenger from a serving cart located in the

aisle in front of the passenger. On soine flights, a combi-

nation of the above types of food service is offered.

55. The pre-set casserole service is generaly utilized in

tourist class on all of the Company’s scheduled commercial

flights. This service with meals of a higher quality is regu-

larly used in first class. All types of services variously are

(or have been) utilized in first class, the domain of the senior

cabin attendant—purser or stewardess. The Company’s

cabin service manual and periodic service bulletins issued

to all cabin attendants carefully describe the preparation

and serving procedures for each type of meal service, and

the duties of the various cabin attendants with respect to

that service.

56. Food and beverage service is one of the competitive

components of the Company’s passenger service. The Com-

39a

pany meets its stiffest competition in this service area on the

international routes on which the pursers are present. Dur-

ing the period 1965-1970, in an effort to upgrade the food

and beverage service on these flights, the Company hired

pursers with food and beverage skills and experience. It also

gave special training to pursers and interested cabin attend-

ants in an internationally flavored cart service cuisine. The

purser was principally responsible for the proper utilization

of this service. Normally the purser dished the food and

mixed the drinks while stewardesses served and took orders.

Currently, this service is utilized in a more limited fashion

on the 747s as an extension of the galley. On flights be-

tween Anchorage and Tokyo, which utilize 320 equipment,

the full cart service is still used.

57. Pursers perform no duties with respect to food serv-

ice which are not also performed by stewardesses, cither on

the same flight or on other flights. The duties assigned to

the Senior Cabin Attendant in the preparation and service

of cart service are identical, whether such attendant is a

purser or a stewardess. The duties of the Senior Cabin At-

tendant (purser or stewardess) in the preparation and serv-

ice of first class meals where cart service is not utilized are

identical to those of the other first class attendants (where

there are such). With respect to food service on MAC and

commercial charter flights (and on other flights with no first

class service at all), the duties of the Senior Cabin Attendant

are the same as all other cabin attendants on such flights.

58. All cabin service attendants variously have certain

responsibilities with respect to documentation. Both pursers

and stewardesses have certain major responsibilities with

respect to liquor service and documentation pertaining

40a

thereto. On all regularly scheduled commercial flights, liquor

is provided without charge in first class and is sold to pas-

sengers in tourist class. No liquor is served on MAC flights.

Thus pursers are not responsible for liquor sales and receipts.

Cabin service attendants who do sell liquor are responsible

for collecting the appropriate prices in whatever currency

tendered and when necessary convert Asian currencies into

U.S. equivalents. They are required to complete Company

records with respect to the beginning and ending inventories

of liquor “kits” boarded and a sales and deposit record

(Form AC-237) and a beverage usage report form (Form

FS-59). In first class, only a beverage use form is required

(Form FS-7 or FS-11). On flights carrying tax free liquor,

certain United States custom inventory forms must be com-

pleted in both first class and tourist. Cabin attendants arc

subject to discipline for improper completion of any of

these forms and the Company is subject to a fine for the im-

proper completion of the United States Customs liquor in-

ventory forms.

59. There are certain other Company documents and

forms which all cabin attendants are responsible for at

various times:

(a) On all flights, the senior cabin attendant and the

senior in tourist must complete the In-Flight-Service re-

port (Form FS-23) on which are recorded the names of

the cabin service crew, passenger count, number of bev-

erages sold and meals boarded, departure and arrival

times, and comments regarding services or special or

unusual events during flight.

(b) On all flights, the senior cabin attendant and the

senior in tourist must complete the log book in which are

recorded cabin items requiring servicing or repair.

4la

(c) On all non-747 flights, the senior cabin attendant

and the senior in tourist must prepare seating charts.

Seating charts are not required on international 747

flights but are required in first class on domestic 747

flights.

(d) On all flights, where circumstances require, com-

pletion of forms pertaining to in-flight movies, ticket up-

grading, meal vouchers, accident reports and lost and

found articles. Cabin attendants are subject to discipline

for improper completion of these forms.

60. In addition to the Company forms, and the U. S.

Customs forms related to liquor, various governments re-

quire that certain documentation be handled by the airline.

Cabin attendants (generally the senior cabin attendant) have

certain responsibilities with respect to such documentation,

which are described precisely in the Cabin Service Manual

and cabin service bulletins. There are certain government

documentation duties performed on both purser and non-

purser flights.

1) On all flights from mainland U.S. to Hawaii the

Senior Cabin Attendant, almost always a stewardess, is

responsible for:

(a) Passing out and collecting an agricultural dec-

laration form (Form A), upon which each passenger

is to list any plants or live animals which he is bringing

into Hawaii. In passing out the form, the Senior Cabin

Attendant tells the passengers what the form is about,

and explains how they will know whether or not they

are required to fill it out.

(b) Spraying the cabin with an insecticide prior to

42a

arrival and recording such on a Certificate of Disin-

sectization. (From October 1969 to December 1970,

pursers were regularly assigned to some, but not all,

of such flights. Between 1954 and 1969, and since

1971, only stewardesses (and FSAs) hav® been regu-

larly scheduled on these flights.)

2) On flights from the U.S. to Winnipeg, stewardesses

are responsible for passing out Canadian customs and

immigrations forms to passengers, seeing that the appro-

priate passengers complete them in flight, and answering

passenger questions about them. On flights from Winni-

peg to the U.S., stewardesses are responsible for passing

out U.S. customs forms (Form 6059-B) to passengers,

seeing that they are completed in flight and answering

passenger questions about them.

3) The U.S. Immigration Service has had an agree-

ment with the Company since 1967 which permits the

Company to accept for passage aliens transiting the U.S.

without a visa (“TRWOV”). The Company assumes the

responsibility of the alien’s continuous transit through,

and departure from the U.S., and severe penalties will be

levied if a TRWOV passenger should deplane and dis-

appear within the U.S. TRWOV passengers are carried

on flights both with and without a purser. Such passen-

gers are placed in the custody of the Senior Cabin At-

tendant, who must assume direct personal responsibility

to assure safe delivery and transfer of TRWOV passen-

gers. The Senior Cabin Attendant maintains custody of

the TRWOV passenger’s travel documents during the

flight. Failure to carry out these responsibilities subjects

the cabin attendant to discipline.

4) On all international flights, all cabin attendants

43a

are required to complete properly their own customs

forms, and also are required to carry a valid passport.

Failure to properly comply with these responsibilities

subjects the attendant to discipline and can result in fines

of the attendant and the Company.

61. The various governments at all of the international

ports served by the Company impose certain policies, pro-

cedures and practices with respect to customs, immigration

and quarantine (CIQ) requirements. As at the inception of

the purser classification in 1947, the purser today is respon-

sible for managing the internationai CIQ documentation re-

quirements for passengers, crew and cargo. The various

governmental CIQ documentation requirements vary and

change from port to port, so that pursers are responsible for

knowing and complying with these different and changing

requirements at United States ports and at cach of the

various foreign ports, including Tokyo, Osaka, Seoul, Oki-

nawa, Taipei, Hong Kong and Manila. The various inter-

national CIQ documents and the detailed procedures with

respect to each are subject to frequent revision, sometimes

with little or no advance warning. Pursers are required to

remain constantly abreast of these changes and to implement

them, on many occasions even prior to receiving Official

instructions or directions from NWA. In addition, there are

separate documents required on NWA’s military contract

flights, which requirements vary with the location of the

base. In general, these CIQ duties fall into four categories:

(a) Transporting.a pouch—teceiving and checking

the contents of a pouch containing various government

' documentation from a Company transportation agent

44a

(ground personnel) prior to departure and delivering it

to another Company transportation agent upon arrival.

(b) Assembling “manifest books’—these generally

contain copies of the General Declaration, cargo mani-

fests and (on some interport and MAC flights) a pas-

senger manifest. Cargo and passenger manifests (which

constitute listings of cargo and passengers aboard the

flight, respectively) are filled out by Company transporta-

tion agents, placed in folders by place of destination and

delivered to the purser in the pouch prior to departure.

The purser makes no entries on the manifests. The re-

quired number of manifest books (specified in the Cabin

Service Manual) are prepared by sorting copies of the

cargo manifests into an order specified in the Manual and

stapling the bundle together with the General Declaration

(and, if there is one, the passenger manifest) to form a

“book.” On MAC flights there are rarely any cargo

manifests. The books are turned over to Company trans-

portation agents upon arrival, who in turn distribute them

to government personnel.

(c) Passing out various customs, immigrations and/or

quarantine forms—these are forms which passengers are

required to fill out prior to landing. The required forms

for each port are placed into the pouch by Company

transportation agents prior to departure, segregated for

each port. The purser (and occasionally other cabin at-

tendants) passes the forms out to the passengers, who

complete and retain them to turn over to government

officials after arrival. While the passenger immigration

forms vary slightly from country to country, the basic

information called for by the forms is essentially the same:

name of passenger, address, citizenship, passport number,

45a

and address while in country. Likewise, while the pas-

senger customs forms vary slightly from country to

country, the basic information called for—goods being

brought into the country which were purchased in other

countries—remains the same. The forms are printed in

both English and the applicable Asian language, and

most are self-explanatory and/or contain written instruc-

tions on their completion. Pursers (as well as other cabin

attendants) answer passenger questions regarding such

forms to the extent that they know the answers. Neither

pursers nor stewardesses are responsible for knowing the

answers to questions unless the information necessary to

answer is contained in the Cabin Service Manual. Stew-

ardesses know the answers to most questions. Pursers have

no responsibility for completing passengers forms. Pro-

cedures with respect to passing out the passenger forms

are detailed specifically in the Manual.

(d) Making entries on certain documents—pursers

are responsible for making entries on only two govern-

ment documents (other than the U.S. Customs liquor

form)

(1) General Declaration (Form 7507): most of the

form is completed by Company transportation agents.

The purser checks crew passport numbers for accuracy,

enters the number of passengers, recites that he has

sprayed the plane, and lists any passengers whom the

attendants believe to be ill. The General Declaration is

required only on transpacific interport flights (commercial

and MAC).

(2) Aijircraft/Vessel Report (I-92): this is a US.

immigration form used to record an aircraft's entry into

46a

or exit from the U.S. It is used only on west-bound domes-

tic segments of international flights and on Tokyo to

U.S. transpacific flights. The purser enters the name and

nationality of the airline (always the same, i.e., “North-

west USA”), flight number, date, ports of arrival and de-

parture (always Seattle, Anchorage or Honolulu, and

Tokyo), ports of destination, total number of passengers

and number of passengers bound for each port. It sathes

fifteen or twenty seconds for the purser to fill out the

I-92. He turns it over to a Company transportation agent

upon arrival.

62. The government documentary duties of pursers

described in the paragraph above are not all required on all

purser flights. Pursers perform the following documentary

duties on the various types of flights on which they are (or

were) used:

(a) On pure domestic flights: none.

(b) On the eastbound portion of domestic segments:

transporting the pouch only.

(c) On the westbound portion of domestic segments:

transporting the pouch, U.S. passenger immigrations form

(I-94), and, during certain periods of time, Aircraft/

Vessel Report (I-92).

(d) On US. to Tokyo flights: manifest books, pas-

senger forms, and General Declaration.

(e) On Tokyo to U.S. flights: manifest books, pas-

senger forms, during certain periods Aircraft/Vessel Re-

port (I-92), and General Declaration.

47a

(f) On interport flights: manifest books, passenger

forms, and General Declaration.

63. Pursers are instructed and expected to carry out

their international documentation responsibilities during

times when there is little or no passenger service. While

they are engaged in these tasks, the other cabin attendants

provide any needed pasenger service and perform their other

assigned tasks. All documentation duties are in addition to

and not in place of regular passenger service duties for all

cabin service personnel. Pursers are responsible and ac-

countable for the international documentation. Pursers have

not been disciplined to any greater extent or degree for

failing to properly perform their tasks with respect to gov-

ernment documentation then have other cabin attendants

been disciplined for failing to propertly perform their tasks

with respect to Company and government documentation.

Of all pursers employed at any time since 1965, only two

have ever been suspended (one time each for a period of

two days each) for improper performance with respect to

government documentation, whereas stewardesses have re-

ceived suspensions of greater duration for improper docu-

ment work (including, for example, one 2-day and one

4-day suspension received by one stewardess, who was a

witness at a trial, for failing to submit her own pay forms

on time).

64. The documentary duties described which are (or

were) assigned only to pursers involve no greater skill, sffort

or responsibility than does the documentary duties assigned

to all cabin attendants. In addition the documentary duties

of the purser does not make that job, in the aggregate, one

requiring greater skill, effort or responsibility than the stew-

ardess job.

48a

65. The Company’s Cabin Service Manual contains a

“chain of command” during flight. The pilot is first in the

chain of command, the co-pilot second, the third member of

the cockpit crew is third and the “Senior Cabin Attendant”

is fourth in the chain of command. If one purser is aboard,

he is denominated the Senior Cabin Attendant irrespective

of his relative length of service as compared to the other

cabin attendants. If two or more pursers are aboard the

flight, the most senior purser is the Senior Cabin Attendant.

If no purser is aboard the flight, the most senior stewardess

or FSA is the Senior Cabin Attendant. On interport flights,

however, the male Asian FSA (who is assigned to most

interport flights) is automatically the Senior ir Tourist

regardless of his seniority. It is rare that the captain or

other members of the flight deck crew become involved in

matters pertaining to cabin service or cabin attendants al-

though all cabin attendants are subject to the authority and

direction of the captain who is completely responsible for

all crew members.

66. Among the cabin attendant crew, the Company’s

Cabin Service Manual provides that a purser shall always

be considered the senior attendant and shall coordinate the

activities of the other attendants and shall be held “respon-

sible and accountable” for conduct of service on the entire

flight. Absent a purser, the cabin attendant with the most

seniority shall be the senior attendant also responsible for

the coordination of cabin service activities on the entire

flight but accountable only for the conduct of service in

that section of the aircraft in which he or she works, the

accountability in the remaining section or sections being

placed on the senior attendant in that section. Duty assign-

ments aboard the flight are made by the senior cabin at-

tendant. Pursers are always assigned to the first class section.

49a

67. Senior cabin attendants (whether purser or steward-

ess) cagage in the following activities in discharging their

“supervisory” responsibilities:

1) Monitoring and where necessary correcting work

of other cabin attendants.

2) Determining time of meal service and movie

showing.

3) Moving attendants from section to section to

balance work loads.

4) Give pre-departure briefings on emergency equip-

ment and procedures.

Stewardesses who serve as Senior Cabin Attendant are sub-

ject to discipline if they fail to carry out their “supervisory”

responsibilities, and are held just as accountable as pursers

who fail to carry out their “supervisory” responsibilities.

Stewardesses who serve as Senior in Tourist are likewise

subject to discipline if they fail to carry out their supervisory

responsibilities. The Company does not maintain a merit

system whereby either pursers or stewardesses who “super-

vise” well are paid more than those who do not supervise as

well. Ail pursers are paid on the same scale, and all steward-

esses on the same scale, regardless of how well or poorly

they supervise.

68. The duties of each cabin attendant position are

clearly defined in the Cabin Service Manual and cabin serv-

ice bulletins. The Manual presents information, responsibili-

ties, and instructions for cabin attendants in a clear and

concise manner. It describes in detail cabin attendant duties,

procedures and responsibilities. Each cabin attendant is

required to be thoroughly familiar with all material covered

”

50a

in the Manual, and procedures in the Manual are expected

to be followed explicitly. As cabin attendants acquire ex-

perience, they are better able to perform their duties with

less need for coordination by the Senior Cabin Attendant.

Relatively new attendants are less certain of their duties

and how to perform them, and require closer watching and

guidance than do more senior attendants. Normally, all of

the stewardesses on flights on which pursers are assigned

are relatively senior and experienced. The pursers’ “super-

visory” responsibilities therefore normally are less demand-

ing than the “supervisory” responsibilities of stewardesses

who serve as Senior Cabin Attendants on domestic flights

with more junior stewardesses. Because the cabin attendants

with the greatest seniority almost always elect to work in

the first class cabin forcing the more junior and less ex-

perienced cabin attendant to work in the tourist class cabin,

and because there are more cabin attendants in tourist class

than in first class, the Senior in Tourist normally spends

greater time and effort in coordinating the duties of other

cabin attendants than does the Senior Cabin Attendant, on

both purser and non-purser flights.

69. The Company hired, trained and promoted individ-

uals in the purser classification with the expectation that

they would exercise leadership and supervisory responsibili-

ties immediately upon being placed as pursers. As automatic

“senior cabin attendants” on all flights to which pursers

were assigned, pursers are “responsible and accountable for

the entire cabin service staff.” Cabin Service Attendants

other than pursers, who functioned on particular flights as

the “senior cabin attendant” are “responsible for the entire

flight” in the proper coordination of cabin service activities

but “accountable” only for the conduct of service in the

Sla

section of the aircraft to which assigned. In the perform-

ance of the duties of the purser and the non-purser senior

cabin attendant, responsibility is synonymous with account-

ability. Only in the purser’s formal relationship with the

Company does his accountability differ from the non-purser

senior cabin attendant and that difference is derived from

status rather than as a function of the job. Cabin service

attendants are employed to serve and protect Company pas-

sengers. The “supervisory” functions of senior cabin at-

tendants—whether purser or stewardess—are less important

than, and require no greater skill, effort or responsibility,

than the other functions assigned to all cabin attendants.

70. Pursers are paid on a different and higher pay scale

than other cabin service attendants. In each round of col-

lective bargaining negotiations since at least the mid-1950's,

the union proposed that stewardesses serving as Senior Cabin

Attendant receive a supplement to their pay. In cach instance,

the Company has refused on the asserted ground that the

longevity step provisions of the stewardess pay scale, which

pay more senior stewardesses more than relatively junior

stewardesses, together with the requirement that the most

senior stewardess on a flight serve as Senior Cabin Attendant,

provided added compensation for performing in that posi-

tion.

71. When pursers were scheduled regularly on pure do-

mestic flights, their duties were identical to those performed

by the Senior Cabin Attendant on domestic flights without a

purser. Pursers had no documentary duties on such flights

which are not performed by stewardesses on other flights.

When pursers were regularly assigned to domestic segments

of international flights (1959 through December, 1970),

52a

their duties (other than the minor documentary responsibili-

ties previously described) were identical to those performed

by stewardesses serving as Senior Cabin Aitendant on non-

purser domestic flights. The only respect in which the duties

of the purser as Senior Cabin Attendant on transpacific and

interport flights differs from those of a stewardess as Senior

Cabin Attendant on non-purser flights is that pursers per-

form certain government documentation responsibilities.

These documentation duties do not make the purser job one

requiring greater skill, effort or responsibility than the stew-

ardess job. When the Company decided to remove pursers

from the domestic segments of ini:rnational flights in De-

cember 1970, it made no changes of any kind in the duties

assigned to, and performed by, cabin attendants on the east-

bound portions of such flights. The only change made with

respect to the west-bound portion of such flights was that

Company transportation agents, who had “always” had

“the responsibility . . . to insure that each out-bound alien

has a properly completed I-94” (U. S. Immigrations form)

were now assigned the additional responsibility to collect the

I-94s (which pursers had previously done in flight).

72. The work of all cabin attendants on MAC flights is

less demanding than on other flights. There is no class serv-

ice, no liquor is served, the food service is less elaborate than

even in the tourist section of commercial flights, and the

Passengers are less demanding. The purser’s government

documentation duties on MAC flights, where there are any,

are relatively minor. On the MAC flights flown out of Hono-

lulu, on which there frequently was more than one purser

assigned, and on which all cabin attendants were pursers

from October 1969 through June 1970, the duties of all but

the most senior purser (Senior Cabin Attendant) were iden-

§3u

tical to the duties performed by stewardesses on other MAC

flights. This is also true on the occasions when more than

one purser is assigned to commercial flights.

73. A substantial percentage of the Company’s overall

utilization of pursers consisted of their assignment to pure

domestic flights or to domestic segments of international

flights. Many pursers flew such flights exclusively, for months

or years at a time. In December, 1970, following the filing of

this lawsuit and the BRAC strike, the Company removed

pursers from pure domestic flights and domestic segments of

international flights. Similarly, a substantial percentage of

the Company’s utilization of pursers has consisted of their

assignment to MAC flights. Many pursers flew such flights

exclusively, for months or years at a time.

74. Until January 1971, boih purser and stewardess

schedules normally were constructed so that the maximum

number of consecutive nights away from home on a trip

during the month ranged from zero to six nights. In and

after January 1971, the Company redesigned its purser

schedules so that many, but not all, pursers would be away

from home on a trip during the month from eight to thirteen

consecutive nights. Stewardess schedules continue to be con-

structed so that the normal maximum number of consecutive

nights away from home on a trip during the month range

from zero to six, although some schedules require more.

75. Until January, 1971, purser and stewardess “nights

away” working conditions were not dissimilar at all. The

eight to thirteen day trips which some pursers have flown

since January, 1971, do not constitute substantially dissimt-

lar working conditions from those of other cabin attendants.

More consecutive days away from home also means more

54a

consecutive days at home during the month. The preferences

of cabin attendants in this regard are highly subjective—

some prefer one long trip a month, while others prefer sev-

erai shorter trips; some find that remaining in the Orient for

several consecutive days easier on their “biological clock”

than repeated transpacific flights with frequent time zone

changes. Because ground time is not counted toward flight

time, purser schedules (encompassing longer flights) entail

fewer actual hours of work, and fewer days away from

home, than short-hop domestic stewardess schedules.

76. Although pursers have flown for many years to

Manila, Okinawa, Taipei and Seoul on interport flights, the

Company's schedules have never required, until 1972, that

they layover in those cities. Pursers flying interport normally

begin and end their day in Tokyo, flying round-trip flights

to other Asian cities. From 1947 to the present date, Ameri-

can stewardesses regularly have had layovers in Tokyo. In

1966, the Company obtained authorization to fly to Hong

Kong. At various times thereafter, the Company has con-

structed some purser interport schedules providing for one

night layovers in Hong Kong. Those few pursers who have

layovers in Hong Kong (or, recently, other Asian cities) do

not have working conditions dissimilar from those of cabin

attendants who do not layover-in interport cities. (In addi-

tion, stewardesses flying on certain MAC flights have had

layovers in interport cities.)

77. ‘Interport flights are manned with an American

purser and Asian stewardesses and FSAs (all of whom speak

English). For years, substantial numbers of purser sched-

ules were constructed so that they required no interport

flying at all, and, therefore, the pursers filling such schedules

5Sa

did not have layovers in Hong Kong or fly with Asian cabin

attendant crews. This included, inter alia, all pursers based

in Washington, D.C. and in Honolulu. From 1952 to 1957

no American pursers at all were scheduled on interport

flights. Flights flown by pursers with Asian cabin attendants

pose no more difficult or different working conditions than

flights without Asian attendants.

78. The job of purser and the job of stewardess require

equal skill, effort and responsibility and are performed under

similar working conditions.

79. The compensation of all cabin attendants is estab-

lished through collective bargaining. There are two separate

base salary scales—one for pursers and one for stewardesses

(and FSAs). Each scale provides for longevity step increases.

Pursers presently receive the top step in their sixth year as a

purser, whereas stewardesses receive the top step in their

ninth year. The base salary of both pursers and stewardesses

is based upon 67 flight hours per month. Additional flight

hours are compensated by an hourly incentive (overtime)

rate (higher for pursers than for stewardesses). In addition,

stewardesses who engage in “foreign flying—defined as all

flights to or from any foreign country, Alaska, or Hawaii

(but excluding Winnepeg, Canada)—receive a $1.00 per

hour supplement for each hour flown on such flights.

80. Pursers’ salaries are, and always have been approxi-

mately 30 to 55 percent higher than those of stewardesses of

equal longevity engaged in domestic flying, and approxi-

mately 20 to 35 percent higher than stewardesses of equal

longevity engaged solely in “foreign flying.”

81. The Company maintains records which enable it

to determine what flight a given cabin attendant has flown

S6a

each day, the position held each day, and the time spent by

that cabin attendant each day. These records enable the

Company to pay cabin attendants different amounts for

different portions of their monthly service. FSA's temporar-

ily filling purser vacancies are paid the purser rate only

while flying as pursers. Stewardesses flying international re-

ceive the “foreign flying” supplement only for the hours

spent on the international flight. Permanently assigned

pursers receive the purser rate and those of a given longevity

the same salary whether or not they are filling the purser

position on the flight and irrespective of the kind of flight,

domestic, foreign or interport. Except for the “foreign flying

supplement” all stewardesses of a given longevity receive the

same salary, irrespective of the nature of the flights or the

position occupied on the flight.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the parties and over

the subject matter of this action, pursuant to the provisions

of the Equal Pay Act [29 U.S.C. §206(d)] and Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. §2000 (e) ].

2. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has discriminated on the

basis of sex in willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29

U.S.C. §206(d) (1), 29 U.S.C. §255(a), on jobs the per-

formance of which require equal skill, effort and responsi-

bility and which are performed under similar working

conditions by:

(a) Paying female stewardesses lower salaries and

pensions than male pursers.

(b) Providing less expensive and less desirable lay-

over accommodations than male cabin attendants.

7

in

57a

(c) Providing female stewardesses no cleaning allow:

ance while providing a uniform cleaning allowance to

male cabin attendants.

3. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has discriminated on the

basis of sex in willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29

U.S.C. §206(d)(1), 29 U.S.C. §255(a), by paying Mary

P. Laffey a lower salary as a purser than it pays to male

pursers with equivalent length of cabin attendant service.

4. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has violated Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-2(a), (here-

inafter “Title VII"), by paying female stewardesses lower

salaries and pensions than male pursers for equal work on

jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort,

and responsibility, and which are performed under similar

working conditions.

5. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has violated Title VII:

(a) By discriminating against females because of

their sex in filling purser vacancies from July 2, 1965

to date.

(b) By providing from June 15, 1967 to date that

stewardesses who became pursers do not get credit for

their stewardess seniority on the purser seniority list,

whereas male FSA’s who have become pursers (both

before and after June 15, 1967), get credit for their FSA

seniority on the purser list.

(c) By providing that stewardesses who become pur-

sers do not get credit for their stewardess seniority on the

purser seniority list, thus perpetuating the effects of past

discrimination from June 15, 1967 to date.

58a

(d) By providing that stewardesses who become pur-

sers are slotted at the bottom of the purser pay scale and

thus receive lower salaries than male pursers with equal

cabin attendant longevity, thus perpetuating the effects of

past discrimination from June 15, 1967 to date.

(e) By changing its procedures and standards for

selecting pursers, lengthening the probationary period,

denying consideration of purser bids to stewardesses who

have not flown with a purser for four years, according

automatic preference to junior pursers Over senior stew-

ardesses in bidding for purser vacancies, discouraging

and attempting to deter stewardesses from bidding on

purser vacancies, failing to post notices of all purser

vacancies at all cabin attendants bases, from June 15,

1967 to date.

(f) By demoting Mary P. Laffey from purser to

stewardess and continuing her as a stewardess, by paying

her a lower salary as a purser than it paid male pursers

hired as cabin attendants subsequent to her, thus perpetu-

ating the effects of past discrimination.

(g) By imposing a “chain of command” aboard its

planes under which all male cabin attendants, irrespective

of classification or length of service were superior to all

female cabin attendants.

(h) By forbidding only female cabin attendants to

wear eyeglasses, to be without cleaning allowances, to

have free choice of luggage, to have single rooms on lay-

overs, to be without weight prescriptions and weight

monitoring and by imposing a shorter maximum height

requirement for female cabin attendants.

ee

59a

6. Each of the above enumerated Title VII violations

are continuing violation, and each continued during the

90 day period preceding the filing of charges with the Equal

Employment Opportunities Commission and therefore, none

is barred by the provisions of 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-5(d).

JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

/s/ AUBREY E. ROBINSON, JR.

Judge

DATED: November 12, 1973

Ib

APPENDIX B

[CAPTION ]

MEMORANDUM

This matter is before the Court for entry of a Final Order

with regard to damages and remedies. Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law establishing liability herein were entered

by the Court on November 12, 1973. The parties have

intensively and thoroughly briefed and argued the present

issues. Two matters merit brief comment.

The Court has not awarded liquidated damages under

the Equal Pay Act. Implicit in this is a finding that Defend-

ant has sustained its defense under 29 U.S.C. §260. The

Defendant did have reasonable grounds for belief that it

was not violating the Equal Pay Act. While this Court has

found as fact that the jobs of purser and stewardess are

in fact equal, it was not unreasonable for the Company to

have believed otherwise. Five factors support this conclu-

sion: the traditional practice of the Company in treating the

positions as unequal, the general industry practice to the

same effect, the acquiescence of the stewardesses’ bargaining

representative in this arrangement, the absence of any griev-

2b

ances or even suggestions from stewardesses to the contrary

prior to the present controversy, and the absence of any

clear legal precedent or guideline precisely in point. The

Court finds “good faith” on the part of the Defendant and

this finding is not inconsistent with the earlier finding of a

“willful” violation of the Equal Pay Act. See Coleman v.

Jiffy June Farms, Inc., 458 F.2d 1139 (Sth Cir. 1971).

The Equal Pay Act violation was willful in that Defendant

was fully aware of the Equal Pay Act and adopted a delib-

erate and knowing course of conduct despite its awareness.

The Court does not find an intentional, bad faith, attempt

to evade the law. The judgment of the Company that its

conduct would not be found to be in violation of the Equal

Pay Act has been found to be in error. The conduct of the

Company in the exercise of that judgment was willful.

The second matter which warrants discussion is the re-

covery period for back-pay under Title VII. The Court has

allowed a recovery period extending back two years from the

date on which the charges herein were lodged with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission. The Court has dis-

cretion to award back-pay to July 2, 1965, but has chosen to

limit that award herein. The 1972 amendment to Title VII,

42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(g), limiting back-pay liability to not

more than two years prior to filing of charges with the

E.E.O.C. is not applicable to this case. Nevertheless, it does

indicate that Congress felt some limitation is appropriate to

avoid “windfall” damage awards and to avoid harsh, and

sometimes unbearable, economic burdens upon employers.

The amendment also indicates that two years is an appro-

priate and reasonable period for measuring the adequacy of

the remedy for the Plaintiffs. In light of these considera-

*

wes Ae tem

3b

tions, the Court has, in the exercise of its discretion, limited

the recovery period.

/s/ AUBREY E. ROBINSON, JR.

United States District Court

DATE: April 3, 1974

ORDER }

The Court having heretofore issued findings of fact and

conclusions of law, and having held therein that defendant

Northwest Airlines, Inc., violated the Equal Pay Act of

1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1), and Title VII of the Civil-

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2, in enumerated

respects; and all parties having filed briefs and presented

oral argument with respect to the remedy questions; it is by

the Court this 3rd day of April, 1974;

ORDERED, as follows:

1. GENERAL INJUNCTION—The Defendant North-

west Airlines, Inc., and its officers, agents, employees, suc-

cessors and all persons or organizations in active concert or

participation with it, hereby are permanently enjoined and

restrained from discriminating in any aspect of employment

of cabin attendants on the basis of sex and from failing or

refusing to fully implement, or to participate and cooperate

in the implementation of, the provisions set forth in the body

of this Order.

2. DEFINITIONS—For purposes of this Order, the

following definitions shall apply:

(a) The term “Company” shall refer to Northwest Air-

lines, Inc.

4b

(b) The term “Union” shall refer to Air Line Pilots

Association, or any labor organization which succeeds

it as bargaining representative of the Company's cabin

attendants.

(c) The term “cabin attendant(s)” shall refer, collec-

tively, to all American-based employees of the Company

whose principal duties consist of providing in-flight cabin

service, whether denominated stewardess, purser, flight

service attendant, steward, or otherwise.

(d) The term “Equal Pay Act plaintiff(s)” shall refer,

collectively, to all female cabin attendants employed by the

Company who filed timely written consents with this Court,

in accordance with 29 U.S.C. §256, to become parties plain-

tiff with respect to the Equal Pay Act aspects of this lawsuit.

(e) The term “Title VII plaintiff(s)” shall refer, co!-

lectively, to all female cabin attendants employed by the

Company at any time on or after July 2, 1965, excluding

only those who filed timely written elections with this Court

to be excluded from this lawsuit in its entirety.

(f) The term “Equal Pay Act recovery period” shall

refer, for each Equal Pay Act plaintiff, to the period com-

mencing three years prior to the date said plaintiff filed a

written consent with this Court and ending on the date the

Company equalizes wages in accordance with Paragraph 3

of this Order.

(g) The term “salary” shall refer to pay for services

performed, as well as such other benefits (e.g. paid leave,

life insurance) as are computed on the basis of salary.

Sb

3. EQUALIZATION OF WAGES—AFFIRMATIVE

INJUNCTION.

(a) Salary: Beginning with the date of this Order, the

Company shall pay all female cabin attendants the salaries

prescribed in the purser pay scale (base pay, and incentive

pay if any) of the then-current collective bargaining agree-

ment. The longevity of each female cabin attendant for

purposes of applying the purser pay scale shall be her system

seniority. Thereafter, the Company shall not reduce the

salary of any cabin attendant below the level to which said

purser pay scale entitles her at any given time, her longevity

for pay purposes at such time being her system seniority.

(b) Pensions: Beginning with the date of this Order,

any pension payment made to any female cabin attendant

shall be computed as though said female cabin attendant

had been classified and paid as a purser throughout the

period of her employment as a cabin attendant.

(c) Lodging: Beginning with the date of this Order, the

Company shall furnish single rooms to all female cabin

attendants on layovers, which shall not be inferior in quality

to those heretofore provided to male cabin attendants. There-

after, the Company shall not assign double rooms to any

female cabin attendant, nor provide rooms to any female

cabin attendant inferior in quality to those heretofore pro-

vided to male cabin attendants.

(d) Uniform Cleaning Allowance: Beginning with the

date of this Order, the Company shall provide a quarterly

uniform cleaning allowance to each female cabin attendant

in accordance with the following standards as to eligibility

and amount:

6b

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning

allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have

been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that

quarter and she must have been so employed for the last

full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning

allowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the

basis of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee

in such quarter.

(e) Prohibition against reducing wages to comply: The

Company shall not, contrary to 29 U.S.C. §206(d)(1),

reduce the wage rate of any employee in order (a) to ac-

complish the equalization required by this Paragraph 3 or

(b) otherwise to comply with the provisions of 29 U.S.C.

§206(d)(1).

4. INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE WAGE DIS-

CRIMINATION—The Company shall not, contrary to 29

U.S.C. §206(d)(1) or 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a) and (h),

discriminate on the basis of sex between cabin attendants

by paying wages to cabin attendants at a rate less than the

rate at which it pays wages to cabin attendants of the op-

posite sex for equal work on jobs the performance of which

requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which are

performed under similar working conditions.

5. MONETARY AWARD FOR THE EQUAL PAY

ACT VIOLATIONS—The Company shall pay to each

Equal Pay Act plaintiff the following monetary amounts:

(a) Foreach month during her Equal Pay Act recovery

period in which she received a salary from the Company

for service as a cabin attendant, the difference between the

7b

salary actually paid to her (including base pay, foreign

flying supplement if any, and incentive pay if any) and the

salary (base pay,.and incentive pay if any) which would

have been paid to her had she been compensated as a

purser with longevity for pay purposes equal to her system

seniority.

(b) If she received pension payments during her Equal

Pay Act recovery period, the difference between the pen-

sion payments made to her and those which would have

been made to her had they been computed on the basis of

her having been classified and paid as a purser throughout

sthe period of her employment as a cabin attendant.

(c) For each layover during her Equal Pay Act re-

covery period in which the lodging furnished by the Com-

pany required her to share a double room, the difference

between one-half the value of the double room actually

provided to her and the value of a single room had it been

provided to her.

(d) For each calendar quarter from March 1, 1970

until the end of her Equal Pay Act recovery period, a uni-

form cleaning allowance in accordance with the following

standards as to eligibility and amount:

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning

allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have

been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that

quarter and she must have been so employed for the last

full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning

allowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the basis

of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee in

such quarter.

8b

6. BACKPAY UNDER TITLE VII FOR WAGE DIS-

CRIMINATION AGAINST EQUAL PAY ACT PLAIN-

TIFFS—The Company shall pay backpay to each Equal

Pay Act plaintiff who was employed as a cabin attendant

at any time between March 28, 1968 and the day preceding

the commencement of her Equal Pay Act recovery period,

to remedy the pay discrimination visited upon her during

said period in violation of Title VII. The amount of backpay

for each such Equal Pay Act plaintiff shall be as follows:

(a) For each month between March 28, 1968, and the

day preceding the commencement of her Equal Pay Act

recovery period in which she received a salary from the

Company for service as a cabin attendant, the difference

between the salary actually paid to her (including base

pay, foreign flying supplement, if any, and incentive pay,

if any) and the salary (base pay, and incentive pay, if any)

which would have been paid to her had she been compen-

sated as a purser with longevity for pay purposes equal to her

system seniority.

(b) For each layover between March 28, 1968, and

the day preceding commencement of her Equal Pay Act

recovery period, the difference between one-half the value

of the double room actually provided to her and the value

of a single room had it been provided to her.

7. BACKPAY UNDER TITLE VI FOR WAGE DIS-

CRIMINATION AGAINST TITLE VII PLAINTIFFS

WHO ARE NOT ALSO EQUAL PAY ACT PLAINTIFFS

—The Company shall pay backpay to each Title VII plain-

tiff who is not also an Equal Pay Act plaintiff to remedy the

pay discrimination visited upon her in violation of Title VII.

9b

The amount of backpay for each such Title VII plaintiff

shall be as follows:

(a) For each month between March 28, 1968, and the

date upon which the Company equalizes wages in accord-

ance with Paragraph 3 of this Order in which she received

a salary from the Company for service as a cabin attendant,

the difference between the salary actually paid to her (in-

cluding base pay, foreign flying supplement, if any, and

incentive pay if any) and the salary (base pay, and incentive

pay if any) which would have been paid to her had she

been compensated as a purser with longevity for pay pur-

poses equal to her system seniority.

(b) If she received pension payments at any time be-

tween July 2, 1965, and the date upon which the Company

equalizes wages in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this

Order, the difference between the pension payments made

to her and those which would have been made to her had

they been computed on the basis of her having been classi-

fied and paid as a purser throughout the period of her em-

ployment as a cabin attendant.

(c) Foreach layover between March 28, 1968, and the

date upon which the Company equalizes wages in accord-

ance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, the difference between

one-half the value of the double room actually provided to

her and the value of a single room had it been provided

to her.

(d) For each calendar quarter from March 1, 1970,

until the date upon which the Company equalizes wages in

accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Order, a uniform clean-

ing allowance in accordance with the following standards

as to eligibility and amount:

10b

(i) Eligibility: To be eligible for a uniform cleaning

allowance in a particular calendar quarter, she must have

been employed as a cabin attendant on the first day of that

quarter and she must have been so employed for the last

full calendar month preceding such first day of the quarter.

(ii) Amount: The amount of the uniform cleaning al-

lowance in each quarter shall be $13 prorated on the basis

of the time on payroll as a cabin attendant employee in

such quarter.

8. WEIGHT: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—The Com-

pany shall not:

(a) Weigh female cabin attendants;

(b) Condition the employment of female cabin attend-

ants upon their agreeing that they may be reprimanded,

suspended (grounded) or terminated for failure to maintain

a prescribed weight;

(c) Prescribe a weight scale to which female cabin

attendants are required or expected to adhere;

(d) Reprimand, suspend (ground) or terminate any

female cabin attendant because of her weight, unless her

weight is such as to render her physically incapable of per-

forming the duties of the job.

9. WEIGHT: AFFIRMATIVE INJUNCTION—The

Company shall:

(a) Notify all female cabin attendants that it will no

longer enforce any weight requirements other than that per-

mitted by Paragraph 8(d) of this Order;

(b) Notify all female cabin attendants who signed

l1lb

agreements conditioning thcir continued employment upon

maintenance of a prescribed weight that such agreement will

not be enforced;

(c) Remove from its Cabin Service Manual all materials

relating to weight inconsistent with the prohibitions of Para-

graph 8 of this Order.

(d)) Offer immediate reinstatement, with system senior-

ity intact, to each female cabin attendant terminated on

account of weight on or after July 2, 1965;

(e) Immediately restore to flying status each female

cabin attendant who is in suspended (grounded) status on

account of weight on the date of this Order;

(f). Remove from each female cabin attendant’s person-

nel files all records of warning reprimands, and or discipline

on account of weight; but preserve such records in a central

location for so long as is necessary to compute backpay

awarded under Paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Order.

10. WEIGHT: BACKPAY: TERMINATED EM-

PLOYEES—The Company shall pay to each Title VII

plaintiff whose employment was terminated on account of

her weight on or after July 2, 1965, backpay for the period

between the date of said termination and the date reinstate-

ment is offered in accordance with Paragraph 9(d) of this

Order. The amount of backpay shall be the amount of wages

she would have earned during said period (adjusted to the

purser pay scale to the extent that the class of which she is

a member is awarded backpay for work performed during

said period), less the amount earned or earnable with reason-

able diligence from other work during said period which

would not have been performed had she not been terminated.

12b

11. WEIGHT: BACKPAY: SUSPENDED (GROUND-

ED) EMPLOYEES—The Company shall pay to each Title

VII plaintiff who lost salary by reason of a suspension

(grounding) on accourit of her weight on or after July 2,

1965, backpay for the period of said suspension (ground-

ing). The amount of backpay shall be the amount of wages

she would have earned during said period (adjusted to the

purser pay scale to the extent that the class of which she is a

member is awarded backpay for work performed during said

period), less the amount she earned from other work during

said period which would not have been performed had she

not been suspended (grounded).

12. EYEGLASSES: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—

The Company shall not:

(a) Forbid female cabin attendants to wear eyeglasses

in flight;

(b) Condition the employment of female cabin attend-

ants upon their agreeing that they will not wear eyeglasses

in flight.

(c) Discriminate in hiring female cabin attendants on

the basis of whether they wear eyeglasses and/or would wear

eyeglasses in flight.

13. EYEGLASSES: AFFIRMATIVE INJUNCTION

—The Company shall:

(a) Notify all female cabin attendants that it will no

longer enforce any rule prohibiting the wearing of eyeglasses

in flight, and remove any contrary material from its Cabin

Service Manual;

(b) Notify all female cabin attendants who signed agree-

ments conditioning their continued employment upon not

13b

wearing eyeglasses in flight that such agreements will not

be enforced.

14. HEIGHT—The Company shall not refuse to hire

female cabin attendants because of their height, if they are

not taller than the Company has considered acceptable in

hiring male cabin attendants at any time on or after July

2, 1965.

15. LUGGAGE: NEGATIVE INJUNCTION—The

Company shall not restrict its female cabin attendants’

choice of luggage to be carried onto the plane, except that

it may require that such luggage be in good condition and

not of a size which would pose storage problems on the

plane.

16. CHAIN OF COMMAND—The Company shall not

establish a chain of command aboard flight which makes a

female cabin attendant subordinate to a male cabin attend-

ant with lesser system seniority, irrespective of their job

titles, and the Company shall revise its existing chain of

command to conform to this requirement.

17. INJUNCTION AGAINST FUTURE DISCRIMI-

NATION IN THE FILLING OF CABIN ATTENDANT

POSITIONS—The Company shall not discriminate on the

basis of sex in the filling of cabin attendant positions irre-

spective of the title of the position and the job content there-

of, unless sex constitutes a bona fide occupational qualifica-

cation for the position within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.

§2000e-2(e)(1), nor shall the Company perpetuate the

effects of past discrimination by according a preference to

pursers not warranted by system seniority in the filling of

any cabin attendant position which may hereinafter be

created.

14b

18. REMEDYING THE PRIOR DISCRIMINATION

IN THE FILLING OF PURSER VACANCIES-—Counsel

for the plaintiffs, counsel for the Company, and counsel for

the Union shall meet promptly after the signing of this

Order, together with such additional persons as each of

them may designate, and shall discuss the following

questions:

(a) Whether, in light of this Order, maintenance of a

separate purser job classification, with a separate set of

monthly schedules to be bid separately, is desired;

(b) If so:

(i) What procedure should be adopted to determine

who properly belongs on the purser list, and with what rela-

tive placement thereon, in light of the Court’s findings as to

discrimination in the filling of purser positions; and

(ii) What changes must be made in the criteria for deter-

mining entitlement to future placement on said list, and

treatment following said placement, in light of the Court’s

findings of discrimination with respect to said criteria and

treatment.

Not later than 60 days after the date of this Order, coun-

sel for the parties shall report to the Court any agreement

they have reached on this matter and, in the absence of

agreement, they shall report to the Court their respective

positions and the arguments in support of their positions.

Upon receipt of such reports, the Court shall determine the

appropriate remedy for the prior discrimination in the filling

of purser vacancies.

19. INTEREST—With respect to all monies to be paid

under the foregoing provisions of this Order, the Company

1Sb

shall pay six percent intcrest per annum from the date the

violation occurred giving rise to said liability through the

date upon which payment is made in accordance with this

Order.

20. MECHANICS FOR PAYMENT PURSUANT TO

THIS ORDER—Counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for

the Company shall meet promptly following the signing of

this Order to establish procedures for determining the pre-

cise monetary amounts due to each employee pursuant to

the provisions of this Order. All costs incurred in making

Said determinations shall be borne by the Company. The

procedures adopted shall be such as to assure that payments

shall be made as soon as possible, but in no event more than

six months after this Order (unless the Court, for good

cause shown, extends said deadline with respect to particular

employees as to whom disputes have arisen concerning en-

titlement or computation). Any disputes as to entitlement or

computation which cannot be resolved by agreement of

counsel shall be referred to the Court for disposition.

21. IMPLEMENTATION—Counsel for the plaintiffs,

counsel for the Company and counsel for the Union shall be

responsible, for a period of two years following this Order,

to take such steps as may be necessary to assure compliance

with this Order, in accordance with the procedure described

in this paragraph. Any complaint by any employee or by

counsel for any party that the provisions of this Order have

been violated shall be discussed initially by counsel. If they

unanimously agree as to the correct disposition of a com-

plaint, they may effectuate said disposition without the need

for referring it to the Court, but shall maintain a written

record of said complaint and disposition. If they do not

unanimously agree as to the correct disposition of a com-

16b

plaint any one of them may refer the matter to the Court for

disposition. The Company shall pay all expenses incurred

by counsel in performing the functions assigned to them in

Paragraphs 20 and 21 of this Order, including the travel

expenses of plaintiffs’ attorneys and shall pay a reasonable

attorney’s fee to the plaintiffs’ attorneys for their services

therefor.

22. LITIGATION EXPENSES—The Company shall

reimburse plaintiffs for.all reasonable expenses incurred on

their behalf in litigating this action. Counsel for plaintiffs

and counsel for the Company shall attempt to agree upon

the amount thereof. In the absence of such agreement, they

shall on or before the 90th day following this Order report

their respective positions to this Court and the Court shall

thereupon determine the amount thereof.

23. ATTORNEY’S FEE—The Company shall pay a

reasonable attorney’s fee for plaintiffs’ legal representation.

Counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for the Company shall

attempt to agree upon the amount thereof. In the absence

of such agreement, they shall, on or before the 90th day

following this Order, report their respective positions to the

Court, and the Court shall thereupon determine the amount

thereof.

24. RETAINED JURISDICTION—The Court hereby

retains jurisdiction of this cause for the purpose of issuing

any additional orders or decrees needed to effectuate,

clarify, or enforce the full purpose and intent of this Order.

JUDGMENT SHALL BE ENTERED ACCORD-

INGLY.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/s/ AUBREY E. ROBINSON, JR.

DATE: APRIL 3, 1974

le

APPENDIX C

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication

in the Federal Reporter or U.S. App. D.C. Reports. Users are requested

to notify the Clerk of any formal errors in order that corrections may be

made before the bound volumes go to press.

Yuited States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUM2™A CIRCUIT

No. 74-1791

Mary P. LAFFEY, ET AL

Vv.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., APPELLANT

Arr LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, NON-ALIGNED PARTY

No. 75-1334

MARY P. LAFFEY, ET AL., APPELLANTS

V.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, NON-ALIGNED PARTY

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

District of Columbia

(D.C. Civil Action No. 2111-70)

Argued September 9, 1975

Decided October 20, 1976

~

<C

Henry Halladay, with whom Wiliiam E. Martin and

John L. Richardson, were on the brief for appellant in

No. 74-1791 and appellee in No. 75-1334.

Michael H. Gottesman, with whom Dennis D. Clark,

Robert M. Weinberg and George H. Cohen, were on the

brief for appellants in No. 75-1334 and appellees in No.

74-1791.

Linda Dorian, Attorney, Equal Employment Oppor-

tunity Commission of the bar of the District of Columbia

Court of Appeals, pro hac vice, by special leave of court,

with whom Beatrice Rosenberg and Charles L. Reischel,

Attorneys, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,

were on the brief for Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission as amicus curiae.

Robert S. Savelson and Donald P. Capuano, were on

the brief for appellee Air Line Pilots Association. Glenn

V. Whitaker also entered an appearance for appellee

Air Line Pilots Association.

A. Andrew Giangreco and Samuel Borzilleri entered

appearances for appellee Transportation Workers Union.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and TAMM and ROoBIN-

SON, Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge ROBINSON.

ROBINSON, Circuit Judge: Northwest Airlines (NWA)

appeals from a judgment of the District Court’ declar-

ing certain of its personnel policies violative of the Equal

Pay Act of 1963? and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

1 Laffey V. Northwest Airlines, 366 F.Supp. 763 (D.D.C.

1973) ; Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 374 F.Supp. 1382 (D.D.C.

1974). See also Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, 392 F.Supp. 1076

(D.D.C. 1975), an adjudication not before us on this appeal.

?Pub. L. No. 88-38, §3, 77 Stat. 56 (1963), 29 U.S.C.

§ 206(d) (1970). Hereinafter we cite this legislation and in

most instances other legislation by reference only to the

United States Code.

3¢

of 1964,* and granting injunctive and monetary relief.

The principal practice in issue here is the payment to

women employed as stewardesses of salaries lower than

those paid to men serving as pursers for work found by

the court to be substantially equal. Others are the pro-

vision to stewardesses of less desirable layover accom-

modations and allowances for maintenance of uniforms,

and the imposition of weight restrictions upon steward-

esses only. In varying respects and degrees NWA chal-

lenges findings of fact * and conclusions of law * on these

matters, as well as the propriety of the remedial meas-

ures adopted.°

On careful review of the extensive record on appeal,

we sustain the District Court’s adjudications on all sub-

stantive questions of statutory infringement. We also

uphold most but not all of the court’s specifications on

relief.’ Thus we affirm the judgment in part, vacate it

in part and remand the case to the District Court for

further proceedings.

I. HISTORY OF THE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

A. Stewardess and Purser Positions

Between 1927 and 1947, all cabin attendants employed

on NWA’s aircraft were women, whom NWA classified

*Pub. L. No. 88-352, tit. VII, § 701 et seq., 78 Stat. 253

(1964), as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seg. (1970).

*See Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.

Supp. at 763-789.

*See id. at 789-790; Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra

note 1, 374 F.Supp. at 1390.

* Laffey Vv. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 374 F.Supp.

at 1382-1390.

"Our discussion takes the following order: in Part I, the

history of the employment practices in issue; in Part II, the

applicable statutes; in Part III, the Equal Pay Act claims;

in Part IV, the Title VII claims; in Part V, the remedial

order; and in Part VI, the liability of the unions.

te

as “stewardesses.”* In 1947, when the company initiated

international service, it established a new cabin-attendant

position of “purser,” * and for two decades thereafter ad-

hered to an undeviating practice of restricting purser

jobs to men alone. In implementation of this policy,

NWA created another strictly all-male cabin-attendant

classification—‘“flight service attendant’—to serve as a

training and probationary position for future pursers.”

NWA has maintained a combined seniority list for pur-

sers and flight service attendants, on which seniority as

pursers accrued to flight service attendants immediately

upon assumption of their duties as such, and a separate

seniority list for stewardesses.* From 1951 until 1967,

flight service attendants had a contractual right to au-

tomatic promotion to purser vacancies in the order of

their seniority.*

It was not until 1967, when a new collective bargain-

ing agreement was negotiated, that stewardesses first

became contractually eligible to apply for purser posi-

* Laffey Vv. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp.

at 765 (Find. 6).

* Id.

1° Jd. This bar to access, found in violation of Title VII,

Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp. at

789 (Concl. 5), is not contested by NWA on appeal. The

company challenges only the finding that the purser and

stewardess jobs are intrinsically equal and thus commanding

equal salaries even for those stewardesses who might not

seek purser status.

1 Laffey Vv. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp.

at 765 (Find. 6).

12 Td. at 766 (Find. 13).

13 Jd. at 766-767 (Find. 14). A small number of flight

service attendants in order to maintain their base location

in Hawaii chose not to become pursers.

¢

ale

tions.** During negotiations on the issue, NWA, for both

the 1967 agreement and another in 1970, rejected an

additional union proposal that stewardesses, like flight

service attendants, be allowed to progress to purser slots

according to seniority, stating that the company “prefers

males and intends to have them.”'’ The company has

also insisted upon the right of “selectivity” in choosing

which stewardesses might become pursers, and has im-

posed other restrictions on stewardesses seeking purser

vacancies which had not previously been laid on flight

service attendants.”

Company policy had been to fill purser openings by

hiring “men off the street” and training them for a

short time, after which notices of purser vacancies would

be posted.” Following the 1967 collective bargaining

agreement affording stewardesses access to these jobs,

however, NWA hired five male purser-applicants with-

* Id. at 767-768 (Finds. 23, 24).

** Id. at 767-768, 778-779 (Finds. 23, 45).

* Jd. at 767-769 (Finds. 23, 24). Stewardesses who bid

unsuccessfully for purser positions are permitted a review

of the company’s action only if they have four years of serv-

ice for the company “on flights to which a purser has been

assigned.” The probationary period for pursers has been

extended from four to six months. Flight service attendants

who become pursers are given credit for their entire service on

the purser seniority list, while stewardesses who become

pursers receive no seniority credit for their service as stew-

ardess, and are required to go to the bottom of the purser

seniority list. Because of an overlap at the upper end of the

stewardess salary scale and the lower end of the purser salary

scale, senior stewardesses who become pursers will not receive

any greater pay as purser for a significant period of time.

The District Court found that these requirements were a sig-

nificant deterrent to stewardess-bidding for purser vacancies.

Id. at 768-769 (Find. 24). This finding is not challenged by

NWA on appeal.

Id. at 769 (Find. 27).

are

out ever posting notices of the vacancies.** In 1970, after

three years of ostensibly open admission to purser status,

NWA had 137 male cabin attendants—ail as pursers—

and 1,747 female cabin attendants—all but one as stew-

ardesses.**

The sole female purser at that time was Mary ‘Pz

Laffey, who bid for a purser vacancy in 1967, after nine

years’ service as a stewardess.” Although that purser

position was scheduled to be filled in November, 1967,

processing of her application was delayed assertedly for

the reason that NWA needed to administer new tests to

purser applicants.” These tests had never previously

been used in selecting pursers, and during the interim

between Ms. Laffey’s application and her appointment

NWA hired two male pursers without benefit of any

tests.*? Finally, in June, 1968, Ms. Laffey became a

purser, but was placed on the bottom rung of the purser-

salary schedule and received less than her income as

a senior stewardess.”*

1s Jd. (Find. 28).

1% Jd. at 773 (Find. 38). These statistics changed signifi-

cantly after suit was filed, when NWA began to diversify male-

female ratios in different occupations. Some men were placed

in the lower-paid categories by demoting pursers and by hir-

ing new male applicants as “stewards”—who were paid at the

stewardess rate. Jd. at 767, 770-771 (Finds. 20, 35).

2° Jd. at 769-770 (Find. 29).

* Jd. at 770 (Find. 30).

2 Id.

23 Jd. (Finds. 31, 33). A pay decrease for progression from

stewardess to purser had been specifically prohibited by the

1967 collective bargaining agreement, which provided:

No reduction in pay shall be suffered by an employee

by virtue of his accepting a purser assignment.

NWA eventually acquiesced and paid Ms. Laffey her stew-

ardess salary rate. Jd. (Find. 33).

=»

v

B. Stewardess and Purser Duties

On this appeal NWA does not challenge holdings by

the District Court that Title VII was violated by NWA’s

refusal to hire female pursers.** Rather, the appeal

* NWA does not contest the conclusions following:

3. Northwest Airlines, Inc. has discriminated on the

basis of sex in willful violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29

U.S.C. § 206(d) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 255 (a), by paying Mary

P. Laffey a lower salary as a purser than it pays to male

pursers with equivalent length of cabin attendant serv-

i oes

5. Norhwest Airlines, Inc. has violated Title VII:

(a) By discriminating against females because of

their sex in filling purser vacancies from July 2, 1965

to date.

(b) By providing from June 16, 1967 to date that

stewardesses who become pursers do not get credit

for their stewardess seniority on the purser seniority

list, where as male FSA’s who have become pursers

(both before and after June 15, 1967), get credit for

FSA seniority on the purser list. .. .

(d) By providing that stewardesses who become

pursers are slotted at the bottom of the purser pay

scale and thus receive lower salaries than male pur-

sers with equal cabin attendant longevity, thus per-

petuating the effects of past discrimination from

June 15, 1967 to date.

(e) By changing its procedures and standards for

selecting pursers, lengthening the probationary peri-

od, denying consideration of purser bids to stew-

ardesses who have not flown with a purser for four

years, according automatic preference to junior purs-

ers over senior stewardesses in bidding for purser

vacancies, discouraging and attempting to deter

stewardesses from bidding on purser vacancies, fail-

ing to post notices of all purser vacancies at all

cabin attendants bases, from June 15, 1967 to date.

(Continued]

Re

focuses primarily on whether the payment of unequal

salaries to stewaidesses and pursers, while occupying

positions as such, implicates Title VII and the Equal

Pay Act. The purser wage scale ranges from 20 to 55

percent higher than salaries paid to stewardesses of

equivalent seniority.* The Equal Pay Act forbids this

pay differential unless greater skill, effort or responsi-

bility is required to perform purser duties.** Title VII™

likewise proscribes inferior sex-based compensation plans

for women and, additionally, extends its protection to ban

conditions of employment imposed discriminatorily upon

women employees.”

7¢ [Continued]

(f) By demoting Mary P. Laffey from purser to

stewardess and continuing her as a stewardess, by

paying her a lower salary as a purser than it paid

male pursers hired as cabin attendants subsequent

to her, thus perpetuating the effects of past discrim-

ination.

(g) By imposing a “chain of command” aboard

planes under which all male cabin attendants, irre-

spective of classification or length of service were

superior to all female cabin attendants.

(h) By forbidding only female cabin attendants to

wear eyeglasses, . . ., to have free choice of lug-

gage, . . . and by imposing a shorter maximum

height requirement for female cabin attendants.

Id. at 789-790 (Concls. 3, 5).

23 Jd. at 788 (Find. 80).

7° The relevant portion thereof is quoted at text infra at

note 90.

27 We discuss this prohibition, and exceptions thereto, in

Part III, infra.

** The relevant portion thereof is quoted at text infra at

note 91.

2* Discussed in Part IV infra.

es 2

Yo

—(1) Flight Assignments

In gauging whether NWA’s pursers and stewardesses

performed equal work, the District Court analyzed in

great detail NWA’s flight operations and its usage of the

three different categories of cabin attendants. NWA flies

diverse itineraries, which affect the type of personnel

assigned to the flight, and which are categorized by par-

ticular terminology. In brief, “pure domestic commercial

flights” are regularly-scheduled commercial flights which

begin and end in the United States, and do not continue

to the Orient.*° Other commercial flights originate in

one city in the United States, fly to an intermediate desti-

nation in the United States, and then on to the Orient;

and the intra-United States portions of such trips are

known as “domestic segments of international flights’.

“Transpacific commercial flights” are regularly-scheduled

flights between Anchorage, Seattle, Honolulu and Tokyo;

while “commercial interport flights” are regularly sched-

uled flights between Tokyo and other Asian cities.*

“Military air charters” are flights contracted with the

United States Government to provide reguiarly-scheduled

military air charter service.”

Pure domestic commercial flights are, with some ex-

ceptions, served exclusively by stewardesses and flight

service attendants.” Pursers are ordinarily utilized on

interport flights, transpacific commercial flights, domestic

*° Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp.

at 775-776 (Find. 40).

= 56.

2 Id.

3 Id.

** At times, NWA has chosen to utilize pursers on domestic

flights. Jd. at 775-778 (Finds. 40, 41).

** Id. at 776-778 (Find. 41).

10c

segments of international flights, and on all types of

charters, military or otherwise, including pure domestic

flights." Since 1967, the company has also maintained

a crew of stewardesses with proficiency in one or more

foreign languages, who are assigned to certain interna-

tional flights.”

NWA schedules a different cabin-attendant crew on

each flight segment; one crew will fly the domestic seg-

ment, another will take over for the transpacific link, and

still a third is used on the interport portion.* Pursers

and stewardesses bid separately, according to seniority,

for monthly schedules.*’

—(2) Overall Evaluation

Probing beneath the different titles, bidding schedules

and salaries, the District Court made extensive factual

findings comparing the work actually done by pursers

and stewardesses, and held it to be essentially equal when

considered as a whole.*® For example, pursers are as-

signed to the first-class section of the aircraft, which has

a smaller passenger load per cabin attendant and a cor-

respondingly more leisurely work pace as compared with

the chores inherited by stewardesses assigned to the

tourist-class section.*' The hourly work load also tends

to be greater on the “short hop” domestic schedules than

on the longer international flights.”

s* Td.

st Jd. at 778 (Find. 44).

%8 Jd. at 778 (Find. 42).

%¢ Jd. (Finds. 42, 43).

«© Jd. at 775-778 (Finds. 40-78).

*t Jd. at 779 (Finds. 49, 50).

* Jd. (Find. 50).

lle

Duties performed do not differ significantly in nature

as between pursers and stewardesses. All must check

cabins before departure, greet and seat passengers, pre-

pare for take-off, and provide in-flight food, beverage and

general services.** All must complete required documen-

tation, maintain cabin cleanliness, see that passengers

comply with regulations and deplane passengers.** The

premier responsibility of any cabin attendant is to insure

the safety of passengers during an emergency, and cabin

attendants all must possess a thorough knowledge of emer-

gency equipment and procedures on all aircraft. All

attendants also must be knowledgeable in first aid tech-

niques and must be able to handle the myriad of medical

problems that arise in flight.“ Food service varies greatly

between flights, but pursers engage in no duties that are

not also performed on the same or another flight by

stewardesses.*’ Another important duty—building good-

will between NWA and its passengers—depends on the

poise, tact, friendliness, good judgment and adaptability

of every cabin attendant, male or female.

—(3) Domestic and International Flights

The District Court found that when pursers are sched-

uled on pure domestic flights, their duties are identical

to those of stewardesses functioning as “senior cabin at-

tendants”—the most senior purser, or the most senior

stewardess on flights with no purser.’ A substantial per-

** Id. at 779-780 (Find. 51).

** Id.

** Id. at 780 (Find. 52).

= 5.

** Id. at 781 (Find. 57).

*s Jd. (Find. 53).

** Id. at 786-787 (Find. 71).

| 2c

centage of NWA’s overall utilization of pursers is on

pure domestic flights and domestic segments of interna-

tional flights. Similarly, a substantial percentage of the

company’s use of pursers is their assignment to military

air charter flights.** Many pursers fly flights of these

types exclusively for months or years at a time.”

Although, as NWA argues, after January, 1971, pur-

sers as a group have spent more nights away from home

than do stewardesses, the District Court found that these

longer trips “do not constitute substantially dissimilar

working conditions from those of other cabin attend-

ants” :*

More consecutive days away from home also means

more consecutive days at home during the month.

The preferences of cabin attendants in this regard

are highly subjective—some prefer one long trip a

month, while others prefer shorter trips; .... Be

cause ground time is not counted toward flight time,

purser schedules (encompassing longer flights) en-

tail fewer actual hours of work... .*

—(4) Documentation Tasks

With respect to documentation responsibilities, the Dis-

trict Court found that pursers and stewardesses have

different, but comparable, duties.** Stewardesses alone

sell liquor, and are alone required to complete inventory

%° Id. at 787 (Find. 73).

81 Jd. On military air charter flights, all phases of work done

by pursers is less demanding than on other flights. There is

no class-service, no liquor, and only very simple food service.

8? Id.

$3 Jd. at 787-788 (Find. 75).

** Td.

8s Id. at 781-785 (Finds. 58-64).

a ne

13c

and sales records, and beverage usage reports. On flights

carrying tax-free liquor, customs inventory forms must

be completed both by stewardesses and pursers,* and all

cabin attendants are subject to discipline for error.** On

all flights, the senior cabin attendant and the senior

in tourist—the senior stewardess in the tourist class—

must make appropriate entries in the log book,*® and also

prepare an in-flight-service report, seating charts, ac-

cident reports and other diverse documents.

Pursers are responsible for administering international

quarantine procedures for passengers, crew and cargo.”

As the requirements vary from port to port, pursers must

keep their knowledge current in order to comply with

*¢ Jd. at 781 (Find. 58). Liquor is provided free of charge in

the first-class compartment, where the pursers work. Hence

pursers must only complete a beverage-use form.

** Id.

* Td.

** The log contains a listing of cabin items in need of repair.

* See the listing in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, supra

note 1, 366 F.Supp. at 781-782 (Find. 59). There are also

various other forms which the senior cabin attendant is re-

quired to complete. For example, on flights from mainland

United States to Hawaii, the senior cabin attendant, who al-

most always is a stewardess, must instruct passengers in the

completion of an agricultural declaration form, spray the

cabin with insecticides and record this information on a “cer-

tificate of disinsectization”. Only stewardesses and flight serv-

ice attendants have been regularly scheduled on these flights.

On flights between the United States and Winnepeg, stew-

ardesses must oversee completion of Canadian and United

States customs forms. The senior cabin attendant also has

direct personal responsibility for the safe transfer of pas-

sage aliens who transit through the United States without

visas, under permission from the Immigration Service—the

so-called “TRWOV” passengers. Id. at 782 (Find. 60).

“ Id. at 783 (Find. 61).

14c

applicable regulations.“ These duties, however, are not

required on all flights to which pursers are assigned, such

as on pure domestic flights on which pursers perform no

documentation duties, and on certain domestic segments

on which such purser duties are minimal.** To boot,

pursers are instructed to carry out their international

documentation responsibilities at times when no significant

passenger service is required, and other cabin attendants

perform all other necessary services during those times.**

The District Court found that “the documentary duties

described which are... assigned only to pursers involved

no greater skill, effort or responsibility than the steward-

ess job.” *

—(5) Stewardess and Purser Responsibilities

The District Court also examined another general, more

intangible, duty advanced by NWA as a factor render-

ing the purser job different in kind from the stewardess

position. The company’s cabin service manual states that

the senior purser on a flight will always be considered the

senior cabin attendant and as such must coordinate the

activities of the other attendants, and is to be held “re-

sponsible and accountable” for the proper rendering of

service on that flight.*° But the manual further provides

that if no purser is scheduled, the most senior stewardess

os Id.

*3 Jd. at 784 (Find. 62). On east-bound segments of domestic

flights, pursers need only transport the pouch containing the

documents and deliver it to another company transportation

agent upon arrival at the aircraft’s destination. On west-

bound portions of domestic segments of flights from the

United States to Tokyo and on interport flights, the docu-

mentation duties are more substantial.

** Jd. at 784-785 (Find. 63).

** Jd. at 785 (Find. 64).

*¢ Jd. (Finds. 65-66).

ett

‘eo

an CHL 2

bt seinen csere. Reet.

—

Sec

will serve as senior flight attendant and will similarly

be charged with coordination of cabin service, although

she is accountable only for the conduct of service in the

section of the aircraft in which she works, responsibility

for the remainder being placed on the senior attendant

in the other section of the aircraft.”

Senior cabin attendants, be they purser or stewardess,

have a number of supervisory duties. These include moni-

toring and, where necessary, correcting the work of other

cabin attendants; determining the times of meals and

movie showings; shifting cabin attendants from section

to section to balance workloads; and giving pre-departure

briefings on emergency equipment and procedures.” On

large planes, even if a purser in the first-class section is

designated the senior cabin attendant, the senior in tourist

shoulders these same burdens in her section of the air-

craft—overseeing the great majority of passengers and

cabin attendants.®? Stewardesses and pursers alike are

subject to disciplinary action if they fail to carry out

their “supervisory responsibilities.” *°

There is, however, no merit system maintained to re-

ward those who “supervise” better than others; all pur-

sers and all stewardesses are on uniform, separate wage

scales, regardless of whether—or how well—an individual

performs."

NWA asserts that it hired, trained and promoted male

pursers in the belief that they would exercise leadership

and be “responsible and accountable for the entire cabin

** Jd. (Find. 66).

** Id. at 785-786 (Find. 67).

** Jd. at 786 (Find. 68).

"© Id. at 785-786 (Find. 67).

“8 3d.

l6c

service staff,” whereas stewardesses functioning as senior

cabin attendants on particular flights would be responsible

for coordination of cabin service on the entire flight but

would be “accountable” only for the manner of service in

their assigned sections of the aircraft."* The District

Court found that, in practice, this distinction between

levels of responsibility and accountability is illusory:

Only in the purser’s formal relationship with the

Company does his accountability differ from the non-

purser senior cabin attendant and that difference is

derived from status rather than as a function of the

. ae

The court found, moreover, that the senior cabin attend-

ant’s duties are not substantially greater than the ordi-

nary cabin attendant’s function:

. . . Cabin service attendants are employed to serve

and protect Company passengers. The “Supervisory”

functions of senior cabin attendants—whether purser

or stewardess—are less important than, and require

no greater skill, effort or responsibility, than the

other functions assigned to all cabin attendants.” *

C. The District Court’s Conclusions

Careful evaluation of the facts comprehensively found

led the District Court to conclude that NWA had dis-

criminated against women cabin attendants on the basis

of sex, in violation of Title VII and the Equal Pay Act,

by compensating stewardesses and pursers unequally for

equal work on “jobs the performance of which requires

equal skill, effort and responsibility and which are per-

2 Id. at 786 (Find. 69).

= 7d. NWA has consistently refused to pay stewardesses

acting as senior cabin attendants any supplement for their

services. Jd. (Find. 70).

™ Jd. (Find. 69).

es

WN tsi scr risier

17c¢

formed under similar working conditions.” More spe

cifically, the court found that NWA had discriminated in

“willfull violation” “* of the Equal Pay Act* (a) by pay-

ing female stewardesses lower salaries and pensions than

male pursers; (b) by providing female cabin attendants

less expensive and less desirable layover accommodations

than male cabin attendants; (c) by providing to male but

not t. female cabin attendants a uniform-cleaning allow-

ance; and (d) “by paying Mary P. Laffey a lower salary

as a purser than it pays to male pursers with equivalent

length of cabin attendant service.” * All of these same

actions were held by the District Court also to be viola-

tions of Title VII * and the court further held that Title

VII violations arose out of other forms of company dis-

crimination, inter alia, (a) in filling purser vacancies;

(b) in denying to stewardesses who became pursers the

same seniority rights and pay given male flight service

attendants similarly promoted; (c) in changing proce-

dural requirements for becoming a purser so as to deter

female applicants, even after the 1967 agreement; * (d)

in erecting a “chain of command” on flights under which

all male cabin attendants, regardless of seniority or clas-

sification, were superior to all females; and (e) in impos-

ing on women alone a ban on eyeglasses, prescribed lug-

gage, and weight and height restrictions."

7s Jd. at 789 (Concls. 2, 4).

76 Jd. (Concl. 2).

729 U.S.C. § 206(d) (1), 29 U.S.C. § 255(a).

*§ Laffey V. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp. at

789 (Concls. 2, 3). Conclusion of Law No. 3, referring spe-

cifically to Ms. Laffey, was not appealed by NWA. See note 24

supra.

7? 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-2(a).

8° See text supra at note 14.

* Laffey V. Northwest Airlines, supra note 1, 366 F.Supp.

at 780-790 (Concl. 5). Many of these are not challenged by

NWA on appeal.

1&c

On this appeal, NWA challenges the District Court’s

central ruling that disparate compensation for equal work

violates Title VII additionally to the Equal Pay Act."

It attacks also the court’s holding that stewardesses and

pursers are entitled to equal pay,** and the corollary

finding that stewardesses who became pursers were im-

properly denied credit for their stewardess seniority on

the purser seniority list.** The company also disputes the

court’s conclusion that Title VII was violated by its

policies regarding cleaning allowances and layover ac-

comodations.** Lastly, it objects to the remedial measure

adopted by the court to cure the conceded violation as to

weight restrictions.** These contentions, in turn, we now

examine.

II. THE APPLICABLE STATUTES

By the Equal Pay Act, adopted in 1963 as an addition *

to the Fair Labor Standards Aci of 1938,°° Congress

ordained:

No employer having employees subject to any provi-

sions of this section ® shall discriminate... between

employees on the basis of sex by paying wages to

employees ... at a rate less than the rate at which

he pays wages to employees of the opposite sex...

82 See Parts III, IV infra.

*? See Parts III, IV infra.

** See Parts III, IV infra.

8° See Part IV infra.

86 See Part V infra.

*’ Pub. L. No. 88-38, § 3, 77 Stat. 56 (1963).

** Act of June 25, 1938, ch. 676, 52 Stat. 1060, as amended,

29 U.S.C. §§ 201 et seg. (1970).

* NWA employees are unquestionably within the cover-

age of the Equal Pay Act.

19c¢

for equal work on jobs the performance of which re-

quires equal skill, effort, and responsibility and which

are performed under similar working conditions,

except where such payment is made pursuant to (i)

a seniority system; (ii) a merit system; (iii) a sys-

tem which measures earnings by quantity or quality

of production; or (iv) a differential based on any

other factor other than sex... .”

By Title VII, Congress has also decreed, with exceptions

not immediately relevant, that

{i]t shall be an unlawful employment practice for

an employer—

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge

any individual, or otherwise to discriminate

against any individual with respect to his com-

pensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of em-

ployment, because of such individual’s race,

color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his em-

ployees or applicants for employment in any

way which would deprive or tend to deprive

any individual of employment opportunities or

otherwise adversely affect his status as an em-

ployee, because of such individual’s race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin.”

It is by these standards that objections to the substantive

features of the District Court’s judgment are to be gauged

on this appeal. ,

A. Interrelationship of the Statutes

NWA argues that the two statutes, read in pari mate-

ria, do not authorize monetary relief premised upon both

legislative schemes for the same act of paying disparate

#29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1) (1970).

* 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (1).

20¢

wages. It is said that while the Equal Pay Act permits

a statutory class action to secure equal pay for equal work

by employees of different sexes,** Title VII’s guaranty of

nondiscriminatory “compensation” applies only to such

minority groups as are not covered by the Equal Pay Act.

NWA further contends that the District Court was in-

consistent in finding transgressions of both statutes. The

argument in this connection may be summarized briefly.

If the purser and stewardess jobs are “equal,” and thus

support the court’s hoiding of an Equal Pay Act violation,

the company’s refusal te permit women to become pursers

does not deprive them of advancement opportunities—

because the jobs are equal—and thus there can be no en-

croachment upon Title VII. Conversely, if the purser job

is superior, there is no infringement of the Equal Pay Act

although access to that position has unlawfully been de-

nied to women under Title VII. NWA does not challenge

the court’s finding that Title VII was dishonored by the

exclusion of female employees from the purser position,

but the company does contest the conclusion that the com-

parability of that position and the stewardess position

brings the salary differential between pursers and stew-

ardesses into collision with the Equal Pay Act.

We reject these approaches. The District Court’s find-

ing that NWA’s purser and stewardess jobs are essen-

tially equal in duties and responsibilities is not logically

inconsistent with the court’s conclusions that NWA im-

pinged on Title VII by blocking the entry of women into

the purser category. Although, as the District Court de-

termined, the two jobs require equal “skill, effort, and

responsibility” so as to command equivalent salaries under

the Equal Pay Act, any statutorily-unexempted sex-based

barrier to obtaining a particular job is forbidden by Title

VII. Among the options withheld by Title VII from an

* See 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (1970).

in

2hc

employer are those which “limit... or classify his em-

ployees or applicants for employment in any way which

would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of em-

ployment opportunities . . . because of such individual's

... sex... .”” Notwithstanding, NWA classified its

cabin attendants more prominently as all-female steward-

esses and all-male pursers, and barred women applicants

from the ranks of the latter though capable through exist-

ing employment and accrued experience with NWA to

meet all of its purser-criteria save sex. That plainly was

outlawed by Title VII as a sex-founded deprivation of

employment opportunities, not the least of which were

the superior emoluments which NWA bestowed on the

purser position.”

Nor do we doubt that the same set of facts may form

the basis for redress under both Title VII and the Equal

Pay Act if the requirements of each are separately satis-

fied and the claimant does not reap overlapping relief for

the same wrong. Unless foreclosed by the statutory lan-

guage or history, nothing to rob aggrieved parties of the

freedom to select among multiple remedies for separate

though concurrent statutory violations is apparent.

Title VII rights are independent oi the rigk‘s created

by other stotutes, and where remedies coincide the claim-

ant should be allowed to utilize whichever avenue of re

lief is desired.°* This would seem to be the clearer for

claimants under Title VII which, as the Supreme Court

held in Alexander v. Gardner-Denver,” was intended to

*? See text supra at note 91.

** See Part I supra.

**See generally, Herbert & Reischel, Title VII and the

Muitiple Approaches

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.