Evangelina G. Gonzalez v. Texas Employment Commission

Fifth Circuit

Evangelina G. Gonzalez v. Texas Employment Commission

563 F.2d 776, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1131, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5914

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 23, 1977

Docket77-2004

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 563 F.2d 776 (Evangelina G. Gonzalez v. Texas Employment Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Evangelina G. Gonzalez v. Texas Employment Commission, 563 F.2d 776, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1131, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5914 (5th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*777 PER CURIAM.

Ms. Gonzalez, plaintiff-appellant, filed a class action against the Texas Employment Commission et al., challenging the Commission’s unemployment compensation policy as it relates to women in the last trimester of pregnancy and in the first six weeks after giving birth. On January 24, 1977, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ms. Gonzalez. While withholding judgment on the amount of damages to which Ms. Gonzalez was entitled, the court granted the plaintiff’s prayer for a declaration that the challenged policy violated the fourteenth amendment. The court, however, also denied Ms. Gonzalez’ request for certification of her suit as a class action. Ms. Gonzalez appeals from this denial of class action status.

We must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. So far as appears in the record, the district court has never entered judgment on Ms. Gonzalez’ claim for damages although the parties have by now stipulated the amount to which she is entitled. Thus, the order from which Ms. Gonzalez takes her appeal has not determined all the claims in the casé and would not ordinarily be appealable absent a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court. See Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1977). While our cases demonstrate that denials of class action status are sometimes appealable even absent Rule 54(b) certification by the district court, Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1975); see generally 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1802 (1972 and Pocket Part 1977), the-general rule is one of non-appealability. Jones v. Diamond, supra, 519 F.2d at 1095 and cases cited therein. The appellant, upon whom the burden to show jurisdiction rests, Jelfo v. Hickok Mfg. Co., 531 F.2d 680, 681 (2d Cir. 1976), has not demonstrated the applicability of any of the exceptions to this general rule.

We, of course, intimate no view on question of whether class status was properly denied in this case. The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*777 PER CURIAM.

Ms. Gonzalez, plaintiff-appellant, filed a class action against the Texas Employment Commission et al., challenging the Commission’s unemployment compensation policy as it relates to women in the last trimester of pregnancy and in the first six weeks after giving birth. On January 24, 1977, the district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of Ms. Gonzalez. While withholding judgment on the amount of damages to which Ms. Gonzalez was entitled, the court granted the plaintiff’s prayer for a declaration that the challenged policy violated the fourteenth amendment. The court, however, also denied Ms. Gonzalez’ request for certification of her suit as a class action. Ms. Gonzalez appeals from this denial of class action status.

We must dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. So far as appears in the record, the district court has never entered judgment on Ms. Gonzalez’ claim for damages although the parties have by now stipulated the amount to which she is entitled. Thus, the order from which Ms. Gonzalez takes her appeal has not determined all the claims in the casé and would not ordinarily be appealable absent a Rule 54(b) certification from the district court. See Hardin v. M/V Ben Candies, 549 F.2d 395 (5th Cir. 1977). While our cases demonstrate that denials of class action status are sometimes appealable even absent Rule 54(b) certification by the district court, Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090, 1095-97 (5th Cir. 1975); see generally 7A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1802 (1972 and Pocket Part 1977), the-general rule is one of non-appealability. Jones v. Diamond, supra, 519 F.2d at 1095 and cases cited therein. The appellant, upon whom the burden to show jurisdiction rests, Jelfo v. Hickok Mfg. Co., 531 F.2d 680, 681 (2d Cir. 1976), has not demonstrated the applicability of any of the exceptions to this general rule.

We, of course, intimate no view on question of whether class status was properly denied in this case. The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Leslie Ray Cox R.M. Cox Larry Driver Barry Nichols John Bullard Robert W. Kennedy, Jr. Lorenzo G. East Clarence M. Pope, Jr. C.R. Altes Jack E. Merrymon Terry P. West R.S. Arnold M.W. Milstead J.W. Wade Manning A.C. Snider Terry H. Melvin Thomas E. Hill Gary D. Swann Ronald E. Frazier Anthony J. Crapet Robert M. Green Heath L. McMeans III Billy Carter Joe A. Knight, George Boglin, Wardell Clark, Phillip L. Drummond, Don L. Flurry, Dennis R. Fulton, Dennis E. Jones, W.T. Mayberry, James R. Miller, Willie J. Nation, Oscar Lee Perry, Robert Poole, Brack Wells, Willie Young, Harry S. Turner v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie and United States Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc and Usx Corporation, A/K/A United States Steel Corporation, Leslie Ray Cox, R.M. Cox, Larry Driver, Barry Nichols, John Bullard, Robert W. Kennedy, Jr., Lorenzo G. East, Clarence M. Pope, C.R. Altes, Jack E. Merrymon, Terry P. West, R.S. Arnold, M.W. Milstead, J.W. Wade, A.C. Snider, Terry H. Melvin, Thomas E. Hill, Gary D. Swann, Ronald E. Frazier, Anthony J. Crapet, Robert M. Green, Heath L. McMeans Iii, Billy Carter, Joe A. Knight, George Boglin, Wardell Clark, Phillip L. Drummond, Don L. Flurry, Dennis R. Fulton, Dennis E. Jones, W.T. Mayberry, James R. Miller, Willie J. Nation, Oscar Lee Perry, Robert Poole, Brack Wells, Willie Young, Harry S. Turner v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie, United States Steel & Carnegie Pension Fund, Usx Corporation, A/K/A United States Steel Corporation

17 F.3d 1386 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)

Cox v. Administrator United States Steel & Carnegie

17 F.3d 1386 (Eleventh Circuit, 1994)

Karen D. Peters, Cross-Appellants v. The City of Shreveport, Cross-Appellee

818 F.2d 1148 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc.

632 F.2d 1238 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)

William Henry Hobbs v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc. And Argonaut Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants-Cross v. Chevron Oil Co., Inc., Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Coastal Marine, Third Party v. Oil Well Drilling Control, Inc., Third Party Defendant-Appellee-Cross

632 F.2d 1238 (Third Circuit, 1980)

Reliance Insurance Company v. Ray Luke

608 F.2d 1020 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)

Freeman v. Califano

574 F.2d 264 (Fifth Circuit, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

563 F.2d 776, 24 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1131, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 5914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evangelina-g-gonzalez-v-texas-employment-commission-ca5-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack