Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Flight Attendants Vs. Zipes

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 22, 1989

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

79 entries 4 linked 75 unlinked
Show
  1. Christiansburg Garment Co. Vs. Eeoc US Supreme Court · Jan 23, 1978
  2. Hensley Vs. Eckerhart US Supreme Court · May 16, 1983
  3. Ford Motor Co. Vs. Eeoc US Supreme Court · Jun 28, 1982
    Distinguished
  4. United States Vs. Monsanto US Supreme Court · Jun 22, 1989
  5. U.S. 754 (1989) U.S. Supreme Court Flight Attendants v. Zipes
    Search
  6. U.S. 754 (1989) Independent Federation of Flight Attendants v. Zipes
    Search
  7. as the representative of respondents' class. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn., Local 550, TWU, AFL-CIO v. American
    Search
  8. we deferred consideration of the petitions pending the outcome of ongoing settlement negotiations. Sub nom. Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  9. the settlement in all respects. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Air Line Stewards and Stewardesses Assn., Local 550 v. Trans
    Search
  10. and consolidated it with the earlier petition filed by respondents, consideration of which had been deferred. In Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  11. Twu, Afl-Cio V. Trans
    Search
  12. it had earlier awarded against TWA from the settlement fund. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed. Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  13. We granted the union's petition for certiorari, 488 U.S. 1029 (1989). II In Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness
    Search
  14. of the relevant Act, Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
    Search
  15. U. S. 412 , 434 U. S. 418 (1978). Thus, in Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  16. Northcross v. Memphis
    Search
  17. without prospect of fee compensation. It is not clear to us that that consequence will follow. Our decision in Martin v. Wilks
    Search
  18. for violation of federal law and liability for attorney's fees under federal fee-shifting statutes. In Kentucky v. Graham
    Search
  19. Cf. Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consumers
    Search
  20. related area of constraints upon district courts' discretion to fashion Title VII remedies. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  21. General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania
    Search
  22. Teamsters v. United
    Search
  23. foster piecemeal litigation of complex civil rights controversies -- a result that is strongly disfavored. See Martin v. Wilks
    Search
  24. litigation, but rather of protecting legal rights -- ranging from contract-based rights, see, e.g., Richardson v. Alaska
    Search
  25. Airlines, Inc., 750 F.2d 763 (CA9 1984) (collective bargaining agreement), to statutory rights, see, e.g., Prate v. Freedman
    Search
  26. F.2d 42 (CA2 1978) (Title VII), to constitutional rights, see, e.g., Reeves v. Harrell
    Search
  27. Grano v. Barry
    Search
  28. the most important ingredients in flight attendants' collective bargaining agreements. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Flight
    Search
  29. Franks v. Bowman
    Search
  30. b), which we interpreted in Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  31. which we interpreted in Hensley v. Eckerhart
    Search
  32. that they are to be interpreted alike. Northcross v. Memphis
    Search
  33. Bd. of Education, 412 U. S. 427 , 412 U. S. 428 (1973). See also Hanrahan v. Hampton
    Search
  34. The dissent, post at 491 U. S. 772 , n. 1, distorts our holding in United States v. Monsanto
    Search
  35. so long as that is the Title VII plaintiff and not the defendant, see Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  36. that Congress has established and competing interests that it normally takes into account. See, e.g., Ford Motor Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  37. antidiscrimination policies of Title VII. Ante at 491 U. S. 763 , quoting Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC
    Search
  38. parties, whose concerns can be addressed most fairly and efficiently in the original Title VII proceeding. Cf. Martin v. Wilks
    Search
  39. against the intervenor's claims in the District Court, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Court. See Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  40. fees, it must be guided first and foremost by the interests of the prevailing party. See Texas State Teachers Assn. v. Garland
    Search
  41. Charles v. Daley
    Search
  42. attorney's fees. Page 491 U. S. 772 The majority overlooks both of these textual directives. After Zipes v. Trans
    Search
  43. in awarding attorney's fees in civil rights cases should respect the objectives of Title VII. See Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody
    Search
  44. Christiansburg Garment, supra, at 434 U. S. 418 , quoting Newman v. Piggie
    Search
  45. to obtain relief, often long after the named defendant has conceded that it violated the Act. See, e.g., Geier v. Richardson
    Search
  46. Reproductive Health v. Akron
    Search
  47. Vulcan Society of Westchester Co., Inc. v. Fire
    Search
  48. promise that prevailing plaintiffs will be made whole for efforts to vindicate their civil rights. Cf. Sullivan v. Hudson
    Search
  49. does not Page 491 U. S. 776 require a finding that any party caused a civil rights injury. See Maher v. Gagne
    Search
  50. Page 491 U. S. 777 Kentucky v. Graham
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial