Facts
- United Airlines enforced a “no-marriage rule” for stewardesses, but not for stewards.
- A stewardess, Carole Romasanta, brought a Title VII action alleging sex discrimination and sought to represent a class of all stewardesses discharged under the rule.
- The district court narrowed the proposed class to stewardesses who had filed charges or grievances and struck the class allegations for lack of numerosity under Rule 23(a)(1).
- The district court permitted 12 discharged stewardesses who had protested their discharge to intervene as individual plaintiffs.
- The case proceeded as a nonclass, multi-plaintiff suit; the district court granted reinstatement and backpay to the named and intervening plaintiffs and entered final judgment.
- Liane McDonald, a discharged stewardess who had not filed charges or a grievance, was a putative member of the originally proposed class.
- After final judgment, McDonald learned the existing plaintiffs would not appeal the order denying class certification and moved to intervene for the limited purpose of appealing that order.
- McDonald filed her motion 18 days after final judgment, within the time for taking an appeal.
- The district court denied intervention as untimely; the court of appeals reversed, holding intervention timely and rejecting the narrowed class definition.
Issues
- Whether a putative class member’s post-judgment motion to intervene under Rule 24(b), filed within the appeal period to appeal denial of class certification, is “timely.”
- Whether the class action filing and related tolling principles permit such post-judgment intervention without requiring earlier protective action by absent class members.
Decision
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals.
- The Court held that McDonald’s post-judgment motion to intervene for the limited purpose of appealing the denial of class certification was timely under Rule 24(b).
- The Court accepted that filing within the appeal period, promptly after learning no existing party would appeal the class ruling, supported timeliness.
- The Court relied on the logic of American Pipe tolling to reject measuring timeliness rigidly from the earlier class-certification denial.
- The Court concluded that allowing this limited intervention did not unfairly prejudice United.
Legal Principles
- Rule 24(b) timeliness is a case-specific inquiry that considers when the intervenor learned that her interests would no longer be protected by existing parties and whether she acted promptly thereafter.
- A putative class member may intervene after final judgment for the limited purpose of appealing an adverse class-certification decision if the motion is timely, including being filed within the normal time to appeal.
- The filing of a class action protects absent class members from needing to file protective actions or motions while they reasonably rely on named plaintiffs to litigate and pursue appropriate review of class rulings.
- Permitting appellate-only intervention may be appropriate where it preserves the opportunity for review of a class-certification denial without reopening merits issues already resolved.
Conclusion
The Court held that a putative class member who promptly moves to intervene after final judgment—within the appeal period and after learning the existing plaintiffs will not appeal—may be allowed to intervene under Rule 24(b) solely to appeal the denial of class certification, consistent with class-action tolling principles and without undue prejudice to the defendant.