Irvin H. Mason v. Kenneth Belieu Appeal of Pan American World Airways, Inc

requirement55 that he ex- normal opportunities his for administrative haust bringing his before discrimina-

remediation claim into court.

tion of the administrative examination

Close suspi- that Leefer articulated

record reveals in his written sub-

cions of discrimination Appeals and Re-

mission to Board

view, therein his fear of re- and outlined reassignment.

prisal challenging

Nonetheless, through traveled Leefer process consistently he tai-

administrative presentation pervasive his

lored reassignment that his was a reduc-

theme procedure There was a

tion rank. might charge have pressed Leefer administratively,56 but

of discrimination he not see fit to pursue

fact did it. stood, matter the District

As the Court had only litiga- “adverse action”

before

tion. judgment appealed from is accord-

ingly

Affirmed. H. MASON et al.

Irvin et al.

Kenneth BELIEU

Appeal of PAN AMERICAN WORLD

AIRWAYS, INC.

No. 74-1731. Appeals,

United States Court of of Columbia Circuit.

District

Argued May 1975. April 1976.

Decided 4,1976. Denied Oct.

Certiorari 144.

See 97 S.Ct. rule, seq. (1974). general et exceptions 771.301 to the but 5 C.F.R. §§ There are applicable case at bar. to the none Bradford, Jr., Washington, D.

William A. , appellant. for C. C., McCreery, Washington,

John D. S. Yelenik, Washington, Ronald with whom G. C., brief, appellees. was on the D. BAZELON, Judge, EDW Before Chief ARDS,* Judge Circuit for the Sixth Cir TAMM, Judge. cuit and Circuit Opinion by Court filed Circuit Judge TAMM.

Opinion Judge filed Circuit ED- WARDS, concurring part dissenging part. n

TAMM, Judge. Circuit Plaintiffs-appellees, Phyllis Irvin and Ma- son, court commenced this action district 36 named individuals and Pan against Am) Airways, (Pan American World Inc. alleging conspired the defendants had committed various acts to and tortious them, including against violations of their rights. The district court civil dismissed complaint except all defendants grounds sovereign Am on immu- jurisdiction. personal lack of nity and defendant, remaining against the case court, resulting Am, tried to the $1,000 in favor of Mr. Mason judgments In the in favor of Mrs. Mason. and $200 * Sitting designation pursuant 291(a). to 28 U.S.C. § deported if hearing awarded he would return on court judgment, appeals plane fight conspiracy costs. the next $150 the Masons Mrs. Mason deportation. favor of judgment was behind dismissal from allowance of costs. to Tocumen Airport Taken in Panama officials, Zone Mason refused Canal from review of the record apparent It flight February Miami on 5 and board court went to extraordina- the that to refused Mason to board pilot allow the Mason, to afford Mr. and lengths ry appeared that he have to be would when se, op- pro every fair proceeding who were forcibly plane. Early onto on the carried we com- present their case and portunity 6, February again Mason was tak- Sunday, of the judge for his conduct trial mend the where he was Airport, Tocumen en to Nevertheless, con- we are proceedings. forcibly flight on a placed Braniff Airlines on two issues raised to remand the strained and was accompanied by to Miami an offi- Pan Am. by immigration of the Canal Zone service. cer Ma- and 1971 Mr. and Mrs. During 1970 Miami, Mason refused to leave his Once daughter in the resided Canal and their son seat, was by County but removed Dade Mason, engineer, Mr. licensed where a Zone placed who police officers him in a wheel- govern- the employee of probationary awas terminal, the Inside Mason refused chair. Pana- operates that the corporation mental declaration, a customs customs sign but that while Mr. Mason claimed ma Canal. ultimately officials released him. by he employed government the was he with his in- Consistent earlier announced committing number of officials observed Panama, return Mr. Mason unethical, tentions illegal, considered be what he a tourist card for entrance into purchased acts. The Masons contend- unpatriotic and ticket for a Pan American that, Mr. Panama questioned because Mason ed Tocumen acts, Airport that afternoon. flight he was a “nonteam branded these his called wife and informed her of organized He then conspiracy and a was player” plans. remove him his Zone officials to among Canal Masons further Zone. The from the Meanwhile, the de- several hours before in the conspiracy the resulted claimed 585, Flight Pan Am Pan Am’s parture of employment Mr. Mason’s termination Airport Manager, Service Robert Assistant probation- while he was still

April, Finn, manager learned from Braniff’s questions which raised con- ary employee, Mi- circumstances Mason’s arrival in the legality continued resi- cerning the of his order, ami, deportation and of Ma- July, In Mr. in the Canal Zone. dence discovering Upon intent to return. son’s employment with a Pana- obtained Mason Flight passage Mason had on booked contractor who had subcontracted manian proceeded gate. When Finn to the Zone, Masons in the Canal and the work arrived, Finn him that Mason told Mason September, to reside there. In continued on Pan Am until fly to Panama could Magistrate of the Canal could Panamanian confirm that his Mason evicted from ordered Zone permit would Mason to enter authorities housing longer since he was no government country. Finn unable to obtain was government and confiscat- employed departed with- Flight confirmation moved to Masons then property. ed his Mason able to obtain alter- Mason. was out Panama. flight on an Air Panama passage nate home, Airport, he called 3, 1972, but when February while in the Canal Tocumen On already his left for wife had employer, for his Mason he learned on business Zone flight. and, airport to meet the Pan Am hearing, was following a was arrested Airport, arrival at Mr. February Upon on 5. The his Tocumen deported ordered wife, testi- surrounding Mr. was met who later deportation Mason events kept had surveil- she been much attention in the Panamanian fied that received followed waited at deportation vowed at his while she press. Mr. Mason lance filing costs without of a bill of costs. was also met there Canal airport. He these consider claims We seriatim. officials. Panamanian Considera- Zone and ensued, the Masons decid- confusion ble resolving issue, In first we must de- Panama. Pana- asylum in Since to seek ed per whether se termine closed, were governmental offices manian 404(b) protection, excluded whether police custody into were taken the Masons treatment of airline’s Mason or of Mrs. request asylum until their discriminated her within and held statute, terms of the following day. broad and whether a granted the damages may action for implied cause of be returned to the The Masons later United nonpassenger under the for a circumstances July, and in filed this action on States begin analysis by case. our of this themselves, daughter their behalf examining briefly history of antidis- Engineering Corporation. the Mason public clauses in transportation. crimination complaint were 36 in their individu- Named 404(b) provides in part: Section including officials of the Panama Ca- als— foreign carrier or air air carrier No Company, government, the Canal Zone nal subject any particular . . . shall Department Army and the —and port, locality or person, description of trial, the district Am. Prior to court dis- transportation any unjust in air traffic against complaint missed the three individ- any or discrimination undue or unreason- sovereign immunity based on uals prejudice disadvantage any able in re- except all other defendants spect whatsoever. improper process. of service of because 1374(b)(1970). 49 This section was U.S.C. § Although the Masons admitted that Pan virtually a “reenactment without substan- any way not in Am was involved in Mr. change” tive of the Civil Aeronautics Act of deportation dismissal or and was H.R.Rep. 2360, Cong., No. 85th 2d of, rather participant itself a victim than a (1958). Report 15 The House Sess. of H.R. in, they conspiracy, nevertheless felt 9738, which contained the language same Am’s conduct that Pan had caused them Act, explained the 1938 that each air carrier mental distress and severe inconvenience tariffs, required “is to adhere to its and is resulted in their seeking asylum. and had charge discriminatory forbidden rates or court, The case was tried to the discriminatory regulations.” to enforce justified that Pan Am had not been found 2254, H.R.Rep. Cong., No. 75th 3d 7 Sess. refusing passage Flight in Mr. Mason on (1938). 2635, also H.R.Rep. See No. 75th 585. The court held that both Cong., Mr. and Mrs. 3d Sess. 70 were entitled to compensatory dam- language 404(b) of parallels The also under the ages provision antidiscrimination provision antidiscrimination of the Inter- 1958, Aviation Act of of the Federal section Commerce Act of state 1887: 1374(b) 404(b), 49 U.S.C. but found (1) It shall be any unlawful for common respect complaints Pan Am with to the subject provisions to the carrier of this daughter Engi- and Mason of the Masons’ subject any particu- chapter ... $1,000 damages neering. The court set firm, person, company, corporation, lar Mason; Mr. Mason and for Mrs. $200 association, district, locality, port, port addition it awarded the Masons costs of district, gateway, point, region, transit Am has not appealed territory, any particular from the description of $150. judgment entered favor of Mr. Mason. traffic to undue or unreasonable prejudice disadvantage any respect challenge propriety is to the of Its award- . whatsoever damages ing to Mrs. Mason under section 404(b) to the allowance of costs. It 3(1) (1970). 49 The Interstate U.S.C. § claims that Mrs. Mason was not within the provision Act primar- Commerce aimed persons covered section discriminatory practices class rates and ily at allowing that the district court erred in favored one shipper geograph- or one

219 946, 355, 96 46 granted, 423 S.Ct. tion U.S. See, g., e. Cullom over another.1 area ical (1975); Wills v. Trans World 276 L.Ed.2d 1093,49th (Jan. Cong., 1st Sess. to S. Report Airlines, Inc., (S.D.Cal. 360 200 Schwartz, The Economic 18, 1886), in I B. Airlines, 1961); v. Trans World cf. Williams Industry: A of Business Regulation 1975) (not (2d 942 Cir. violation 509 F.2d Regulatory of U. History S. Legislative transport passenger when there refuse Debate (1973); 42 see Senate Agencies grounds he creates to believe are reasonable 49th Report S. on Conference passengers). risk to other We ex- safety 15, 1886—Jan. (Dec. Cong., 2d Sess. urged expansion further amine (remarks Schwartz, supra at 371 1887), I light legisla- of this in this case in plaintiff Hoar); (remarks Coke), of Sen. 414 of Sen. setting development. tive House Conferees on S. Statement 18, 1887), (Jan. in I Cong., 2d Sess. 49th observing nothing begin by 459; Debate on Schwartz, supra at State- or relevant cases statute in the Conferees, Cong., 49th 2d Sess. ment injured parties ex exclusion absolute Schwartz, supra at 18-21, 1887), in I (Jan. provi remedial from the cept passengers Nelson). Rep. It has also (remarks 404(b). all-encompass sions of prohibiting for cases basis as the “person” served found in section ing definition provision in the of rail- racial discrimination evidences a desire widescale States, facilities, Henderson v. United against discriminatory road rates and protection 94 L.Ed. 1302 agree S.Ct. with 339 U.S. We therefore cases practices. States, 313 Mitchell v. United U.S. (1950); finding agents travel are shielded un (1941). 1201 404(b) against unjust 85 L.Ed. application 61 S.Ct. of der Bureau, rates, Becker Travel Inc. v. William scope the exact of section Although supra, Belgian Airways, World Sabena clearly delineated in 404(b) not been has subjected may not be that cases, or the relevant the statute either discriminatory restaurants and rest racially protects against ap unfair provision airports, City v. of United States rooms tariffs, William Becker of filed plication Montgomery, supra, F.Supp. 201 at 594. Bureau, Belgian Inc. v. Sabena Travel just equal Assuring rates and access to air (S.D.N.Y. Airways, 13 Av.Cas. 17770 World reading a broader facilities line extended to 1, 1975), has also been May passengers only. for protection than discrimination, Fitzgerald v. racial prohibit Inc., Airways, 229 protect persons American World all attempt Pan This however, (2d 1956); v. does not mean practices, Cir. United States unjust F.2d 499 (M.D. Montgomery, F.Supp. injuries 201 590 traceable some direct City of discrimination, Ala.1962); “bumping”2 passengers of to airline line of causation minute, policies, how distant or are com- contrary to established matter method no in a Airlines, Inc., only section 404. Not must pensable 167 U.S. Allegheny v. Nader included within the class peti- nonpassengers be 512 F.2d 527 cert. App.D.C. failing “Bumping” listed these causes of also 2. of board 1. The Cullom is Report practice the railroad passengers system: oversale of the complaint ticketed due to flight. For a unjustifiable description prob- scheduled are discriminations 4. That suggested see 40 J. Air L. & remedies, individuals in the made between lem and constantly Airlines, Allegheny charged (1974); similar Nader v. for like service under rates Com. 553 Inc., circumstances. 512 F.2d 533- 167 U.S.App.D.C. discriminations are made That 5. improper (1975). 37 freight of and branches of articles between “ like and between character, of a business firm, ‘Person’ means any individual, copart- same class of of different quantities company, association, corporation, nership, freight. joint-stock association, body politic; discriminations 6. That unreasonable assignee, or oth- trustee, receiver, includes any situated. similarly localities made between 49 thereof.” U.S.C. representative er similar Regulation The Economic of Schwartz, I B. (1970). 1301(27) Legislative A History and Industry: Business Agencies Regulatory U. S. by failing provide Act, made this infor- but covered persons mation, the airline breached its duty recovery must be they seek injury for which nondiscriminatory persons treatment of all The by the statute. protected interest public facilities. Even if using its we were judice held that sub in the case trial court assume, this alleged “dis- by the Masons as suffered any damages covered by panoramic crimination” by Pan- detention subsequent their result of against “any undue or protection4 unrea- not attributable to were officials amanian prejudice disadvantage sonable Record, 74 at 10. Doc. American. whatsoever,” we still would respect have to therefore, damages, related Mrs. implied if an cause of action ex- determine distress she suffered mental solely to the 404(b) type of injury. ists under to arrive on the failed husband her when Although trial court’s flight. Aviation Act does pro scheduled The Federal not hold, ap- expressly violations, not so caused damages but does vide opinion damages implied for Pan courts have a civil these both several cause assess pears to beginning cases let Mason in line of with the refusal to Mr. board action American’s Fitzgerald explain Circuit's decision in his absence to Second failure and for its Inc., Airways, supra. Pan American World inquired she when Mrs. Mason court, in Fitzgerald allowing damages The sug- Pan Am’s actions Because Am desk. discrimination, emphasized for racial damages from two kinds of claims— gest in evaluating for national standards need one direct —we examine one derivative “separate equal policy” but an airline’s applicability statutory injunc the ineffectiveness each. remedy operated only tive prospec unjustified the airline refusal of The 229 F.2d at also tively. See Wills v. to use his ticket for Mr. Mason to allow Airlines, Inc., supra, World Trans only Flight 585 affected indi Fitzgerald implied at 363-65. personally she denied rectly since supported doctrine has remedy dam Pan American services facili access to ages bumped passengers, the case of Although the trial court held that her ties. regulations despite the fact that CAB now “directly and foresee- distress was mental remedy.5 Mortimer v. Delta Air action, tort by this this con ably” caused 276, Lines, F.Supp. (N.D.Ill. 302 279-82 bring not Mrs. Ma cept of causation does Airlines, 1969); Allegheny v. see Nader because someone else injury son’s —distress Inc., supra, 512 F.2d at 537. the transportation clss was denied —within convinced, however, not are that the sought protected by to be interests imply to a remedy court’s discretion for 533, L. 40 J. Air & Com. 545 statute. See duty of an airline’s some violations under waiting (suggesting persons for (1974) 404(b) a allowing pri- rule section bumped passengers should not recover un duty. vate redress for all breaches 404(b) “because a statute that der section imply have sometimes refused to a Courts protect particular to a designed class pen- cause of action from a private criminal particular a or harm cre from risk persons statutory alty goals when could be ef- respect duty with to another class ates no by the legislatively fectuated decreed reme- risk”). We hold such derivative or when or the claim did not exist at dies not under the are actionable antidis claims See, g., law. e. Rosdail Western common clause. crimination 681, Aviation, Inc., F.Supp. 297 683-87 to question (D.Colo.1969); Worley, troublesome arises as Yelinek v. 284 A more 679, (E.D.Va.1968); Moungey v. F.Supp. failure to answer Mrs. Mason’s 681 the airline’s 445, (W.D.Wis. Brandt, argument F.Supp. 250 451-53 plausible A can be question. regarding scope protection of CAB action 5. See the discussion of this 4. See discussion of Inc., Airlines, Airlines, Allegheny problem 200 in Nader v. v. Trans World Wills Inc., supra, (S.D.Cal.1961). 512 F.2d at 533-37. 363

221 transportation is pro- Act denied not an interest (violation Federal Aviation 1966) William Beck- regulations); see also the Act. safety tected Bureau, Belgian Second, from any disadvantage resulting Inc. v. Sabena Travel er supra (not allowing injunc- Airways, failure her respond American’s to to World case). litigant in private a relief concerns facilities offered as tive question pri- and is outside the convenience public recently Supreme Court has Act objective of Federal Aviation mary which must be con four factors enunciated promote. private determining whether sidered economical, serv- adequate, and efficient expressly implicit a statute remedy charges, carriers at ice air reasonable creating one: discriminations, unjust undue without protect the statute intend to Does 1. disadvantages, unfair or preferences person this harm? from this class competitive practices. destructive legislature indicate in- Did the 2. 1302(c)(1970). protect- 49 U.S.C. Just as § remedy? deny private create or tent ing unsatisfactory tourists hotel ac- private remedy be consist- 3. Would is too from this far removed commodations legislative goals? with ent purpose private remedy, primary imply a cause of action one traditional- Is the supra, is assur- Polansky, 523 F.2d at so state law? left ly waiting persons passengers that ing Ash, 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. be assisted infor- they courteously Cort v. U.S. will (1975). Applying 45 L.Ed.2d counters too from the evils mation remote test, recently Third conclud- Circuit to be remedied intended does not exist for private remedy ed that Refusing passengers to let ticketed board a the antidiscrim- alleged violations of others in plane when the same situation Polansky v. Trans provision. In ination transportation clearly denies access allowed Airlines, Inc., (3d 523 F.2d 332 Cir. World right of transit” “public freedom of recognize a 1975), that court refused to navigable through airspace, 49 U.S.C. persons under the Act for of action cause statutory and contravenes the ground first accommo- claiming that class the Federal Aviation Act. purposes sponsored regulated aby in a tour dations information failure to as- clerk’s While class were inferior to tourist air carrier distraught undoubtedly wife creates sist a Id. at 335-38. The court found services. public good relations and is poor a breach of lay in state the claimants’ remedies practices, we do not believe that carrier contract, misrepresen- for breach of actions every at- discourtesy or lack of preventing and, tation, warranty breach of further- objective primary is a of the Feder- tention more, inferior do not accommodations purpose Act’s avowed al Aviation Act discrimination under constitute transportation air without unrea- adequate attempts to air equal assure access to therefore, not, preferences. It is sonable agree at 336 with Id. n. 13. We facilities. requiring private remedy not ex- goal Circuit that the Cort standards the Third by Finally, granted Congress. pressly authority of courts’ are determinative Mrs. outside like Mason’s which lie claims 404(b). remedies under section imply relegat- aim of the major Act should be the provided by the Act itself or ed to remedies judice, the case Mrs. Ma In sub tort state law. principles of by traditional to meet the Cort test in claim fails son’s provides adequate protection of statute The there is no clear particulars. Since several public’s general interest in nondiscrimi- the legislative deny intent of indication by natory ground treatment at facilities private remedy, we base our deci the allow allowing injunction the CAB to seek remaining considera on the three Cort sion violations, 1007(a), 49 section prohibiting 523 F.2d at 336. Polansky, supra, tions. 1487(a) earlier, (1970), request or to en- First, § as discussed U.S.C. provi- of the antidiscrimination by distress caused her husband’s forcement emotional General, any days time more tan 10 before Attorney section ment at by the sion See, g., e. is 1487(b). accepted, the offer not and the trial. If 1007(b), 49 U.S.C. § supra Montgomery, by plaintiff of the is City obtained not judgment States United at public offer, restrooms in (racial plaintiff discrimination than the the more favorable may be conduct Egregious the costs incurred after the offer airport). pay must need, liability. see no judgment tort subject The offer of is served was made. therefore, remedy for private imply party is adverse filed with the upon the the by members of suffered accepted. inconveniences if If the is only offer not court airport facilities. public general accepted, only oppose be used the can plaintiff costs after the has filed award of the claim before Although Mrs. Mason’s bill; is apprised the court not otherwise his principles, on tort also relied court Wright 12 C. & A. its existence. solely un- of granted damages See judge the trial Miller, Federal Practice Procedure no 404(b). we hold that Because der section at 57 damage remedy exists for her under private statute, this we must remand case case, In more month before than one so, doing claims. In her other of evaluation judg- Am offered the Masons a trial Pan Pan American’s treat- condone neither we $3,000 accepted. which was not In ment any view concern- of her nor intimate ment Rule Pan Am cannot be accordance with claims. of her alternate ing resolution costs the Masons in liable for incurred properly left the trial These issues judgment obtaining a lesser after the date court. the bill of costs of the offer. Without man- judge Am’s claim of error section the trial second dated could court failed to follow estab which costs were that the district determine taxable not statutory procedure awarding in costs accrued after the offer. The lished along judg provi- costs with comply $150 Masons failure to with the plaintiffs’ find merit this claim. ment. We 1920 precluded section sions of presenting its defense based on Rule from Rules of Although Rule 54 of Federal requires therefore 68 and reconsideration judge endows the trial Civil Procedure with trial court. by the deciding discretion in whether considerable allow, his and which costs to tax costs reasons, judgment For these for Mrs. by statutory is bound limits. Sec- decision judgment awarding and the costs 1920 Title U.S.C. states tion case must be vacated remanded for permissive terms Rule “[a] proceedings opinion. consistent with any judge or clerk court United So ordered. . . . . . .” may tax . costs States section, also contains This EDWARDS, (concurring Judge Circuit mandatory bill of costs admonition “[a] dissenting in part part). . . . .” More- be filed the case shall over, requires “[bjefore I court pleased am has reached taxed,” the his party, agreement bill of costs is in this that: unanimous case * * * agent verify attorney, must the cost nothing in the statute rele- Since the Masons did items affidavit. vant cases absolute exclusion of costs, file a bill of the district court’s injured except parties passengers costs in error. allowance provisions the remedial of section 404(b). all-encompassing definition procedures be noted that the set

It should “person” found section 1013 evi- and in sections 1920 1924 are not mere forth “3 early court’s al- formalisms. individual, any firm, copart ‘Person’ means nership, corporation, company, association, prejudice costs resulted in to lowance of association, joint-stock body politic; or rights Am’s under Rule 68 of the Fed- Pan trustee, any receiver, assignee, includes or a Rules of Civil Procedure which allows eral representative other similar thereof.” defending judg- to make party an offer of 1301(27) (1970). § U.S.C. a desire pro prejudice disadvantage widescale or in any dences reasonable against discriminatory rates and noting tection respect whatsoever,” and further agree We therefore with cases practices. figure damage $200 found District travel finding agents are shielded Court, say I cannot the District 404(b) against unjust application of under finding of discrimination and disad- Judge’s rates, Bureau, Becker William Travel Inc. vantage “clearly to Mrs. Mason was errone- Belgian Airways, supra v. Sabena World passen- As the wife of a fare-paying ous.” (S.D.N.Y. May 1, 1975)] Av.Cas. 17770 certainly to meet him ger, she entitled [13 may not be sub arrival Tucaman Air- scheduled on his racially jected discriminatory restau was also an invitee on She port. airports. rants and restrooms in United premises right who had a American’s City of Montgomery, supra, 201 States concerning why her husband was inquire Assuring just at 594. rates and flight. his scheduled Pan American not on to airline equal access facilities testimony, as quoted by the District Her reading than protection for pas broader “that the clerk not answer Judge, did her only. sengers simply away walked into question undisputed room” stands on back that the majority holding join the I also unexplained failure to record. Such re- should not be construed question statute would, normal question to a spond as I damages for of derivative award allow held, Judge District arising from believe “disadvan- distress mental Mason’s Mrs. spouse, any even tage” without the carry highly her hus- failure to American’s background of this case. flight to Panama for emotional back on the band ticketed. he was which see no valid reason under I can these failing to imply a cause of Here, Court also facts action District question, damages upon arising direct under federal award diversi- based jurisdictions, Mason. He found that Mrs. interstate commerce ty, injury to a cause of action1 1332 and 1337 complaint stated §§ 28 U.S.C. of the provision Judge. District Nor can I see any the discrimination did (given Act follows: distinction Aviation valid “unreasonable Federal disadvantage” language statute) of the be- foreign air carrier air carrier or (b) No implying cause of action here tween make, any undue or give, cause shall nonpassenger doing so in other cases advantage to preference or unreasonable majority opinion approves. As locality, or person, port, particular any case, aspect respectfully I dis- transportation description of traffic in air sent. subject any respect whatsoever any port, locality, or de person, particular transportation of traffic in air

scription unjust any discrimination or undue any prejudice or disadvan

or unreasonable respect whatsoever. Pub.L. any

tage in IV, 23, 1958,

85-726, 404, Aug. Title §

Stat. 1958, 49 U.S.C. Aviation Act of

Federal (1970). em- language

Noting the breadth of the Congress prohibiting above

ployed or un- undue

“unjust discrimination upon the claim 28 U.S.C. jurisdiction §§ consider its The District Court founded 1332 and 1337

Case Details

Case Name: Irvin H. Mason v. Kenneth Belieu Appeal of Pan American World Airways, Inc

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

Date Published: Apr 15, 1976

Citation: 543 F.2d 215

Docket Number: 74-1731

Court Abbreviation: D.C. Cir.