Legal Document

437 U.S. 478 98 Supreme Court Reporter 2451 57 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 364 Jo Ann Evans GARDNER, Petitioner,v.WESTINGHOUSE BROADCASTING COMPANY. Number 77-560. Argued March 22, 1978. Decided June 21, Syllabus Petitioner, who had been denied employment by respondent's radio station, brought an action seeking injunctive relief against respondent on behalf of herself and other females adversely affected alleged practice discriminating women. The District petitioner's motion for class certification under Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 23(b). Claiming that since the could be granted in favor would broader than she might obtain as individual, denial effect refused a substantial portion sought, petitioner immediately appealed 28 Code KF62 § 1292(a)(1), which gives courts appeals jurisdiction from interlocutory orders refusing injunctions, but Appeals held it no jurisdiction. Held: order denying was not appealable 1292(a)(1). Pp. 480-482. 559 Federal Reporter, 2nd 209, affirmed. Robert N. Hackett, Pittsburgh, Pa., petitioner. Leonard L. Scheinholtz, respondent. Mr. Justice STEVENS, delivered opinion Court. 1 Third Circuit 1292(a)(1)1 injunction. 209. Because there is conflict among Circuits question whether 1292(a)(1) authorizes such appeal,2 we certiorari. 434 984, 608, 54 477. We affirm. 2 Petitioner unsuccessfully applied talk-show host at station owned She then this civil rights sought to represent included past, present, future female employees; unsuccessful applicants; deterred reputation applying employment; will considered account their sex. Her complaint prayed equitable entire class.3 3 moved pursuant Fed.Rule 23(b).4 grounds claim typical case did present questions law or fact common class. appealed, invoking 1292(a)(1).5 4 argues if prevails may individual. practical is, therefore, refuse requested complaint. Relying our decision General Electric company versus Marvel Rare Metals Co., 287 430, 53 202, 77 L.Ed. 408, sort request establishes appealability cannot agree; indeed argument misconceives both scope import decisions Electric. 5 history reviewed Baltimore Contractors Bodinger, 348 176, 178-181, 75 249, 250-252, 99 233, need repeated. It sufficient note statute creates exception long-established policy piecemeal appeals, authorized enlarge extend. narrow one keyed "need permit litigants effectually challenge serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence." Id., 181, 252. 6 have any "irreparable" effect. prior after final judgment;6 affect merits own claim; pass legal sufficiency clai relief.7 This stands sharp contrast Electric.8 In dismissing counterclaim injunction appealable. order, entirely disposed defendant's prayer relief; here, merely limits ultimately granted. While significant litigation, "[m]any are equally important, . they reason converted into injunctions." Morgantown Royal Insurance 337 254, 258, 69 1067, 1069, 93 1347. 7 As stated Switzerland Cheese Assn., Incorporated E. Horne's Market, Inc., 385 23, 24, 87 193, 195, 17 "we approach [§ 1292(a)(1)] somewhat gingerly lest floodgate opened brings many pretrial orders." does embrace direct irreparable impact controversy. case, like Cheese, impact; "in way touch[ed] only relate[d] procedures ." same 25, S.Ct., 195.9 A holding falls within compromise "the integrity congressional appeals." U.S., 195. 8 judgment 9 so ordered. "§ 1292. Interlocutory decisions. "(a) shall from: "(1) district granting, continuing, modifying, dissolving dissolve modify except where review Compare Williams Wallace Silversmiths, 566 (CA2 1977); Mumford, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 125, 511 363 (1975), cert. denied, 423 828, 96 47, 46 (holding 1292(a)(1)), with Smith Merchants & Farmers Bank, 574 982 (CA8 1978); Jones Diamond, 519 1090 (CA5 1975); Price Lucky Stores, 501 1177 (CA9 1974); Yaffe Powers, 454 1362 (CA1 1972); Brunson Board Trustees School 1, 311 107 (CA4 1962), 373 933, 83 1538, 10 690 appealable). file preliminary injunction; reason, issue decided Jenkins Blue Cross Mutual Hospital Insurance, 538 164 (CA7 1976), 429 986, 97 506, 50 598 (plaintiff's appeal appellate jurisdiction), before us. On day filed her class-action certification, also compel answer interrogatories concerning its employee rosters stations, operated located cities. second because certification. seek 1292(b). noted, status "may conditional, subject alteration amendment judgment, F.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1) If, merits, deemed unsatisfactory, fully reviewable." 212; see Airlines, McDonald, 432 385, 393, 2464, 2469, 423. There important distinction between "one based abuse discretionary power over action." Stewart-Warner Corporation Westinghouse Corp., 325 822, 829 1963) (Friendly, J., dissenting). "Where former type, danger serious harm court's erroneous belief existence barrier entertaining has thought outweigh general undesirability appeals. very type hinges trial discretion itself indication orders, relating primarily convenience carry lesser threat harm." Ibid. addition Electric, relies Enelow New York Life 293 379, 55 310, 79 440, Ettelson Metropolitan 317 188, 63 163, 176. Both those cases, however, rest "legal" "equitable" claims supply precedential weight argument. Our characterization cases 1347, applicable here: "[D]istinctions common-law supported conclusions analogy competent make what ordinary understanding word one." summary 1292(a). Inasmuch trademark infringement, was, anything, more refusal case. Of course, sense, "touch merits," court must consider reveals que tions fact, material disputed fact. But determination otherwise reflect relief.

Classification Label: 8