## Facts

- Mary Burke Sprogis worked for United Air Lines as a flight cabin attendant (“stewardess”).
- United maintained and enforced a rule requiring stewardesses to be unmarried.
- On June 19, 1966, United discharged Sprogis for violating the no-marriage rule.
- United employed male cabin attendants (including on overseas flights) and did not enforce any comparable marital restriction on male attendants.
- United also did not impose comparable marital restrictions on female employees outside the stewardess position.
- Sprogis filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination under Title VII § 703(a)(1); the EEOC ultimately found reasonable cause and issued a right-to-sue notice.
- The district court found a Title VII violation, enjoined discrimination against Sprogis, ordered reinstatement, and retained jurisdiction to determine back pay.
- United took an interlocutory appeal challenging liability and the permissible scope of Title VII relief.

## Issues

1. Whether discharging a stewardess under a no-marriage rule applied only to stewardesses, and not to similarly situated male employees, constitutes discrimination “because of ... sex” under Title VII § 703(a)(1).
2. Whether United could justify the rule under Title VII’s bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, including asserted operational concerns and customer preferences.
3. Whether a district court in a Title VII case may grant relief benefiting similarly situated employees beyond the named plaintiff, notwithstanding Rule 23 class-action requirements.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed the judgment for Sprogis.
- The court held United’s no-marriage rule, as enforced against stewardesses but not male attendants, constituted unlawful sex discrimination under § 703(a)(1).
- The court rejected United’s attempt to justify the policy as a BFOQ.
- The court held that, in Title VII cases, a district court may provide relief to similarly situated individuals where justice requires, even if Rule 23 formalities are not satisfied.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on back pay and potential broader relief.

## Legal Principles

- A policy framed in terms of “marital status” can violate Title VII when it is enforced in a manner that imposes a burden on one sex and not the other.
- The Title VII BFOQ exception is construed narrowly; generalized business convenience and asserted customer preference do not justify sex-linked employment restrictions absent a showing of necessity to normal business operations.
- EEOC interpretations and determinations, while not controlling as statutes, are entitled to substantial weight in construing Title VII.
- Title VII courts possess broad equitable authority to craft remedies, including extending relief to similarly situated employees when needed to effectuate the statute’s remedial purposes.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that United’s stewardess-only no-marriage rule was discriminatory because of sex, could not be justified as a BFOQ, and supported equitable relief for Sprogis with the possibility of broader remedial orders for similarly situated employees on remand.


Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971)