United Airlines, Inc. v. McDonald

1977-06-20

Headline: Court affirms that a former United stewardess may intervene after final judgment to appeal a denial of class certification, making post-judgment intervention timely and available in these circumstances.

Holding: The Court held that a former United stewardess's post-judgment motion to intervene was timely under Rule 24 because she promptly sought to appeal the District Court's denial of class certification within the appeal period.

Real World Impact:

Allows putative class members to intervene after final judgment to appeal class-denial orders.
Can preserve absent claimants’ rights if a class is certified on appeal.
May complicate settlements by permitting post-judgment appeals in settled cases.

Topics: class actions, appealing class certification, intervention timing, employment discrimination, settlements and finality

Summary

Background

United Airlines long enforced a "no-marriage" rule that forced many female stewardesses out of their jobs. Individual and class suits followed: one early suit (Sprogis) found liability; a later class complaint (Romasanta) sought relief for all discharged stewardesses. The District Court refused broad class certification, allowed some intervenors, and the parties later resolved individual claims; the court entered final judgment. A stewardess who had not previously filed charges moved 18 days after final judgment to intervene only to appeal the earlier denial of class status.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether that post-judgment intervention was "timely" under Rule 24. It distinguished an earlier case (American Pipe) by noting that this intervenor sought to obtain appellate review of the class-denial order, not merely to join in litigating her individual claim. Because the motion to intervene was filed promptly after final judgment and within the ordinary appeal period, and because the original complaint had put United on notice of classwide liability, the Court held the motion was timely and should have been granted.

Real world impact

The decision allows putative class members who did not participate earlier to move into a case after final judgment for the narrow purpose of appealing a denial of class certification if they act promptly. The ruling is procedural: the Court did not reconsider United's Title VII liability, which earlier proceedings had addressed. The opinion also highlights tensions between protecting absent class members and preserving the finality of settlements.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell (joined by the Chief Justice and Justice White) dissented, warning that the Court extends tolling rules and undermines statutes of limitations and settlements by allowing late intervention to reopen resolved cases.