Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
- Decided
- February 24, 1982
- Docket
- 78-1545
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,939 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that time limits in Title VII are not jurisdictional but are instead like statutes of limitations — Seitzinger v. Reading Hosp. and Medical Center (1999)
- holding that ninety-day (now 180-day) time limit for filing Title VII claim against private employer is not jurisdictional — Michael D. Bayer v. United States Department of the Treasury (1992)
- holding that timely filing with the EEOC is a prerequisite for bringing suit in federal court, although the requirement may be excused on equitable grounds — Morris v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1999)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice White delivered the opinion of the Court.
The primary question in these cases is whether the statutory time limit for filing charges under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1970 ed.) is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit in the District Court. Secondarily, we resolve a dispute as to whether retroactive seniority was a proper remedy in these Title VII cases.
[*388] I In 1970, the Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Association (ALSSA), then the collective-bargaining agent of Trans World Airlines (TWA) flight attendants, brought a class action alleging that TWA practiced unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII by its policy of grounding all female flight cabin attendants who became mothers, while their male counterparts who became fathers were permitted to continue flying. After collective bargaining eliminated the challenged practice prospectively, the parties in the case reached a tentative settlement. The settlement, which provided neither backpay nor retroactive seniority, was approved by the District Court. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, however, found the union to be an inadequate representative of the class because of the inherent conflict between the interests of current and former employees. It remanded the case with instructions that the District Court name individual members of the class to replace ALSSA as the class representative.[1] Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. American Airlines, Inc., 490 F. 2d 636 (1973).
Statutes cited
Cite this
Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.