Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans

431 U.S. 553 (1977)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans

United States Supreme Court

431 U.S. 553 (1977)

Facts

Carolyn Evans (plaintiff) worked as a flight attendant for United Air Lines, Inc. (United) (defendant) beginning in 1966. At the time, United had a policy that female flight attendants could not be married. Evans got married and was forced to resign from her position in February of 1968. Evans did not file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to protest her forced resignation, but a court subsequently found in a case involving a different female flight attendant that United’s policy violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Evans subsequently sought reemployment with United, and United rehired Evans in 1972. However, United treated Evans as a new employee and did not credit Evans with any of her prior years of service for seniority purposes. Other male and female United employees who resigned and were subsequently rehired also received no seniority credit for their prior service. Evans brought an action against United alleging a violation of Title VII. Evans claimed that United’s seniority system unlawfully discriminated against her based on her sex because (1) she was treated less favorably than males hired between her date of termination and date of rehiring, and (2) the seniority system gave a present effect to United’s past illegal no-marriage policy. Evans did not allege that United’s seniority system differentiated between similarly situated employees based on their sex. The district court dismissed Evans’s claim, finding that Evans’s action was based on her 1968 forced resignation, which she failed to timely challenge with the EEOC. However, the court of appeals reversed, holding that Evans was challenging the seniority system based on the present effects of the 1968 discrimination. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 546,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 546,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership