Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes

1989-06-22

Headline: Limits on fee awards against union intervenors: Court limits when courts can force intervening unions or other third parties to pay winners’ lawyer fees, allowing fees only for frivolous, unreasonable, or baseless interventions, protecting good-faith intervenors.

Holding: The Court held that Title VII attorney's fees may be awarded against a losing intervenor only when the intervenor’s participation was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation, reversing the lower courts' fee award and remanding for further inquiry.

Real World Impact:

Protects unions and intervenors from fee awards unless their intervention was frivolous.
Limits plaintiffs’ ability to recover attorney fees from intervenors after settlement.
Remands to lower court to decide if the union’s intervention was frivolous.

Topics: employment discrimination, attorney's fees, union rights, class action settlements

Summary

Background

This case began when a class of female Trans World Airlines flight attendants sued TWA in 1970, claiming the airline fired women who became mothers in violation of federal employment law (Title VII). TWA settled by creating a $3 million fund and crediting reinstated class members with full competitive seniority. A successor union intervened to protect incumbent members’ bargaining-based seniority rights and opposed the settlement. Respondents’ lawyers later sought attorney’s fees from that intervening union; the District Court awarded $180,915.84 against the union in addition to roughly $1.25 million taken from the settlement fund and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the fee-shifting statute, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k), allows fee awards against intervenors who were not found to have violated the law. Relying on earlier cases about fee awards, the Court held that intervenors are not presumed liable for fees just because a Title VII plaintiff prevailed. Instead, courts may award fees against a losing intervenor only if its intervention was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation. The Court emphasized that innocent intervenors often protect legitimate contract or statutory rights, and that treating them like wrongdoers would chill good-faith intervention and encourage piecemeal litigation. Because the lower courts had assumed automatic liability and made no frivolousness inquiry, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Real world impact

The decision protects unions and other third parties who join lawsuits in good faith to defend their contractual or legal interests from routine fee liability. It requires lower courts to ask whether the intervenor’s position was frivolous before ordering fee payment, and it sends this particular fee dispute back for that inquiry.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment but argued that defendants, not plaintiffs, should sometimes bear intervention-related costs; Justice Marshall dissented, urging that prevailing plaintiffs ordinarily be made whole, including fees caused by intervenors.