Leah Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Company, a Delaware Corporation, Leah Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Company, a Delaware Corporation

Leah Rosenfeld brought this action against Southern Pacific Company pursuant to section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 1 Plaintiff, an employee of the company, alleged that in filling the position of agent-telegrapher at Thermal, California, in March, 1966, Southern Pacific discriminated against her solely because of her sex, by assigning the position to a junior male employee.

Plaintiff originally asked for injunc-tive relief and damages specifically related to the Thermal incident. 2 However, in a pretrial order thereafter entered, supplementing the pleadings, issues were posed which went beyond the circumstances of that incident and which could result in determinations affecting the company’s general labor policy respecting the employment of women. 3

The court permitted the State of California to intervene because of its interest in defending the validity of the state’s labor laws. Following extensive proceedings, a summary judgment was entered, as summarized in the margin. 4 It will be noted that while the judgment is generally favorable to plaintiff, the court did not award damages against the *1221 company. Southern…

(dissenting) :

I think this case is moot. The fact that the decision is intended only to have prospective application confirms this view. (There is no indication that Southern Pacific eliminated the Thermal position purposely to moot this case.) That Congress did not intend the Civil Rights Act to abrogate traditional mootness concepts, thereby allowing what amount to advisory opinions, is clear from 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g), which allows an employee damages measured by back pay. Legislatures often use this device in the private enforcement of public rights context to prevent defendants from easily mooting cases. In her complaint Rosenfeld sought as damages an amount that would compensate her for the wages (including overtime) she missed as a result of being denied the Thermal position. The court below found that she was not entitled to damages and she filed no cross appeal on this point. Thus, she has no monetary issue before this court.

With the Thermal position out of the way, there is nothing left for the judgment to operate on, no more “actual con *1228 troversy.” Rosenfeld still works for Southern Pacific as an agent telegrapher, and whether she might in the future seek a…

444 F.2d 1219 Leah ROSENFELD, Appellee, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Appellant. Leah ROSENFELD, Appellee, v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, et al., Appellants. No. 23983. No. 23984. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 1, 1971. Jefferson Frazier, Deputy Atty. Gen., (argued), Evelle J. Younger, Cal. Atty. Gen., Jay S. Linderman, Deputy Atty. Gen., San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. Frank G. Wells (argued), of Gang, Tyre & Brown, Hollywood, Cal., Louis M. Brown, Los Angeles, Cal., Bodle, Fogel, Julber & Reinhardt, Los Angeles, Cal., Schoene & Kramer, Washington, D. C., for appellee. David W. Zugschwerdt, Washington, D. C., Charles P. Scully, Donald C. Carroll, San Francisco, Cal., for amicus curiae. Before CHAMBERS, HAMLEY and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. HAMLEY, Circuit Judge: 1 Leah Rosenfeld brought this action against Southern Pacific Company pursuant to section 706(f) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Act), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f). 1 Plaintiff, an employee of the company, alleged that in filling the position of agent-telegrapher at Thermal, California, in March, 1966, Southern Pacific…