## Facts

- John R. Novotny was a long-time employee of Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association (GAF), serving as corporate secretary and a board member.
- Novotny alleged that GAF’s officers and directors pursued a plan that denied female employees equal employment opportunities.
- In 1974, a dispute arose involving a female employee, Betty Batis, who asserted sex discrimination.
- Novotny claimed he supported Batis and other female employees at a board meeting by opposing the alleged discriminatory practices.
- Novotny alleged that, because of his opposition, he was forced out of his employment and removed from the board.
- After filing an EEOC charge and receiving a right-to-sue letter, Novotny sued in federal court seeking damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), alleging a conspiracy to deprive him and others of rights associated with Title VII, including Title VII’s anti-retaliation protection.

## Issues

1. Whether conspiracies motivated by invidious sex-based discriminatory animus fall within 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).
2. Whether a male plaintiff may sue under § 1985(3) when he is injured for opposing a conspiracy targeting women’s equal employment rights.
3. Whether Title VII rights (including protection from retaliation for opposing discrimination) can serve as the federal rights vindicated through § 1985(3).
4. Whether the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine categorically bars a § 1985(3) claim against a corporation and its officers/directors.

## Decision

- The en banc Third Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that sex-based conspiracies may be actionable under § 1985(3) when motivated by class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus against women.
- The court held that Novotny had standing because § 1985(3) provides a cause of action to the person injured by the conspiracy, even if he is not a member of the targeted class.
- The court held that Title VII rights could supply the “equal protection” or “equal privileges and immunities” interests that § 1985(3) protects against conspiratorial interference, including retaliation against an employee for opposing sex discrimination.
- The court rejected a categorical intra-corporate conspiracy bar, concluding that allegations against corporate officers and directors could satisfy the conspiracy element in this context.

## Legal Principles

- Section 1985(3) reaches conspiracies driven by “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus,” and the class need not be limited to race.
- A plaintiff has standing under § 1985(3) if he is injured by the alleged conspiracy, even if the conspiracy’s discriminatory objective targets a different class.
- Section 1985(3) is remedial; it can be used to seek relief for interference with otherwise defined federal rights, which the court held could include statutory rights created by Title VII.
- Title VII’s remedial scheme was not treated as an exclusive bar to an otherwise properly pleaded § 1985(3) conspiracy claim.
- The intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine does not automatically immunize a corporation and its officers/directors from § 1985(3) liability when a conspiratorial agreement and discriminatory objective are plausibly alleged.

## Conclusion

The en banc Third Circuit held that Novotny stated a claim under § 1985(3) by alleging a conspiracy motivated by sex-based animus that retaliated against him for opposing discrimination against women, and it permitted the suit to proceed despite arguments that Title VII’s procedures and intra-corporate conspiracy principles foreclosed relief.


Novotny v. Great Am. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 584 F.2d 1235 (3d Cir. 1978) (en banc)