Elliot SANDLER, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. EASTERN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Appellant
26 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 31,835, 649 F.2d 19, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 13295 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) is inappropriate and will be dismissed if the certified question of law is potentially hypothetical due to an ambiguous complaint and an undeveloped factual record, as it fails to present a controlling question of law that will materially advance the litigation.
Facts:
- Elliot Sandler was a married man with children.
- On or about August 29, 1972, Sandler applied for a position as a flight attendant (steward) with Eastern Airlines.
- At the time, Eastern Airlines allegedly had a policy of not hiring married men or individuals with children for flight attendant positions.
- Eastern Airlines rejected Sandler's application.
- Sandler was informed that his application was rejected because of this policy.
Procedural Posture:
- In December 1977, Elliot Sandler (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Eastern Airlines (defendant) in federal district court.
- Eastern Airlines filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
- The district court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
- Eastern Airlines then moved for certification for an immediate interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on the legality of its employment policy.
- The district court granted the motion, and the U.S. Court of Appeals granted permission for the interlocutory appeal to be heard.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) appropriate to decide the legality of an employment policy when the plaintiff's factual and legal theories of discrimination are not clearly articulated in the complaint or subsequent proceedings?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. An interlocutory appeal is not appropriate because the certified question does not present a controlling question of law that would materially advance the litigation. The court reasoned that the appeal should be dismissed because: 1) The plaintiff’s complaint is so vague that it is questionable whether it states a valid cause of action, failing to clearly articulate a theory of either disparate treatment or disparate impact. 2) The certified question—the legality of a no-marriage policy applied to both sexes—may not be a 'controlling' issue if the plaintiff's actual claim is that the policy was merely a pretext for intentional discrimination against males. 3) If the claim is based on disparate impact, the factual record is entirely undeveloped, with no data to show whether the policy disproportionately affected men or women, or if any impact was legally significant. 4) The underlying agency certification was based on a theory of discrimination against women, not men, raising an un-argued question of whether the plaintiff can proceed on an 'anti-male' theory. Given these uncertainties, the certified question is hypothetical, and deciding it would not advance the termination of the litigation.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the narrow application of interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), emphasizing that appellate courts will not rule on abstract or hypothetical legal questions. It underscores the necessity for a well-developed factual record and a clear legal theory at the trial court level before an issue is ripe for appellate review. The case serves as a strong precedent against using interlocutory appeals to resolve ambiguities in pleading or to seek advisory opinions on issues that may not be determinative of the case's outcome. It reinforces the distinct roles of trial courts in fact-finding and appellate courts in reviewing questions of law based on a concrete record.
