Philip Carchman & Marilyn R. Carchman v. The Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Philip Carchman & Marilyn R. Carchman v. The Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1992 · …historically pervasive discrimination. ✓
66 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia (ca3, 2007-11-06)
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979 2002 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 29 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Magnum v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia
3rd Cir. · 2007 · confidence medium
Instead, insofar as we have recognized that § 1985 protects “victims of historically pervasive discrimination” and those with “immutable characteristics,” see Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Lake v. Arnold, 112 F.3d 682, 687 (3d Cir.1997), we hold that minor children — who have not been recognized as “victims of historically pervasive discrimination” and whose sole classifying characteristic (i.e., their minority) is not immutable — fall outside the ambit of the statute.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Pearson v. Miller
M.D. Penn. · 1997 · confidence medium
Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979). “[W]omen are a class protected by section 1985(3),” Lyes, 126 F.3d at 1390.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pierce v. Montgomery County Opportunity Board, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1995 · confidence medium
In the Third Circuit “it is clear that § 1985(3) protects only against discrimination based upon ‘immutable characteristics,’ such as race or gender, for which the members of a class have no responsibility.” Denchy, 803 F.Supp. at 1062 (quoting Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 ; 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Palace v. Deaver
E.D. Pa. · 1993 · confidence medium
Volunteer Medical Clinic, supra, at 224, citing, inter alia, Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Roe v. Operation Rescue, 710 F.Supp. 577, 581 (E.D.Pa.1989), reversed in part on other grounds, 919 F.2d 857 (3rd Cir.1990).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Denchy v. Education & Training Consultants of PA, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979) (quoting Novotny v. Great Am.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Operation Rescue
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1070 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1991); New York State Nat'l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 , 1359 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2206 , 109 L.Ed.2d 532 (1989); Volk v. Coler, 845 F.2d 1422, 1434 (7th Cir.1988); Long v. Laramie County Community College Dist., 840 F.2d 743, 751-53 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 , 109 S.Ct. 73 , 102 L.Ed.2d 50 (1988); Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F.2d 15, 20 (1st Cir.1984); Mayer v. Wedgewood Neighborhood Coalition, 707 F.2d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.1983); Carchman v. Korman Corp…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Volunteer Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Operation Rescue
6th Cir. · 1991 · confidence medium
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 1070 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1176 (1991); New York State Nat’l Org. for Women v. Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 , 1359 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 2206 , 109 L.Ed.2d 532 (1989); Volk v. Coler, 845 F.2d 1422, 1434 (7th Cir.1988); Long v. Laramie County Community College Dist., 840 F.2d 743, 751-53 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 , 109 S.Ct. 73 , 102 L.Ed.2d 50 (1988); Stathos v. Bowden, 728 F.2d 15, 20 (1st Cir.1984); Mayer v. Wedgewood Neighborhood Coalition, 707 F.2d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir.1983); Carchman v. Korman Corp.,…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) De Botton v. Marple Township
E.D. Pa. · 1988 · confidence medium
See also: C & K Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 704 F.2d 690 (3d Cir.1983) (section 1985 has never been held to apply to economically motivated conspiracies); Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979) (tenant organizers did not state cause of action under section 1985(3)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Diulus v. Churchill Valley Country Club
W.D. Pa. · 1985 · confidence medium
United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 463 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 3352 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983) (nonunion employees not protected class for purposes of § 1985(3)); Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.) (tenant organizers not protected class), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Three Rivers Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Pittsburgh, 502 F.Supp. 1118, 1133-34 (W.D.Pa.1980) (no allegation of immutable characteristic; dismissal of § 1985(3) claim).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scott v. City of Overland Park
D. Kan. · 1984 · confidence medium
See C & K Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 704 F.2d 690 , 700 (3d Cir.1983); Padway v. Palches, 665 F.2d 965, 969 (9th Cir.1982); Shortbull v. Looking Elk, 677 F.2d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 907 , 103 S.Ct. 211 , 74 L.Ed.2d 168 (1982); Life Insurance Co. of North America v. Reichardt, 591 F.2d 499, 505 (9th Cir.1979); Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association, 584 F.2d 1235, 1243 (3d Cir.1978) (en banc), rev’d on other…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hauptmann v. Wilentz (2×)
D.N.J. · 1983 · confidence medium
Like racial animus, sexual animus is “based upon ‘immutable characteristics’ for which the members of the class have no responsibility.” Carchman v. Kor *386 man Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.) (construing Novotny), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Carey (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 , 623 & n. 22 (7th Cir.1979) (section 1985(3) reaches discrimination based on political affiliation with racial overtones), modified on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 , 100 S.Ct. 1987 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.) (section 1985(3) protects "victims of historically pervasive discrimination" and those with "immutable characteristics"), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); see also DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327, 333 (9th Cir.1979) (homosexuals n…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keating v. Carey (2×) also: Cited "see"
2d Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Hampton v. Hanrahan, 600 F.2d 600 , 623 & n. 22 (7th Cir.1979) (section 1985(3) reaches discrimination based on political affiliation with racial overtones), modified on other grounds, 446 U.S. 754 , 100 S.Ct. 1987 , 64 L.Ed.2d 670 (1980); Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.) (section 1985(3) protects “victims of historically pervasive discrimination” and those with “immutable characteristics”), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); see also DeSantis v. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Co., 608 F.2d 327, 333 (9th Cir.1979) (homos…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schnabel v. BLDG. & CONST. TRADES COUNCIL OF PHILA.
E.D. Pa. · 1983 · confidence medium
Nor are we persuaded that tenant organizers have been victims of the historically pervasive discrimination practiced against women. *1040 Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979), quoting Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n, 584 F.2d 1235, 1243 (3d Cir.1978) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 442 U.S. 366 , 99 S.Ct. 2345 , 60 L.Ed.2d 957 (1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Cooper v. Molko
N.D. Cal. · 1981 · confidence medium
The Griffin Court did indeed leave open what classes are covered, and several courts have defined such classes in terms of “immutable characteristics for which the members of the class have no responsibility.” E. g., Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
cited Cited "see" Knubbe v. Sparrow
E.D. Mich. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3rd Cir.1979) (class of tenant organizers is beyond reach of § 1985(3)). 23 .
cited Cited "see" Brownell v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
E.D. Pa. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Forman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Bauge v. Jernigan, 669 F.Supp. 348 (D.Colo.1987).
cited Cited "see" Miller v. Indiana Hospital
W.D. Pa. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
cited Cited "see" C & K Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America
3rd Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
cited Cited "see" C & K Coal Company v. United Mine Workers Of America
3rd Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
cited Cited "see" Chicarelli v. Plymouth Garden Apartments
E.D. Pa. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
Banghart v. Sun Oil of Pennsylvania, 542 F.Supp. 451 (E.D.Pa.1982); See Carchman v. Korman Corporation, 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.1979).
discussed Cited "see" Amoco Oil Co. v. Local 99, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
D.R.I. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979) (§ 1985(3) available both to “victims of historically pervasive discrimination” and those with “immutable characteristics for which [they] have no responsibility”); Bricker v. Crane, 468 F.2d 1228, 1233 (1st Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 930 , 93 S.Ct. 1368 , 35 L.Ed.2d 592 (1973) (no § 1985(3) claim where plaintiff asserted membership in a “novel class which is neither readily cognizable nor among those traditionally protected by the Civil Rights Act�…
cited Cited "see" Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
E.D. Pa. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 456 F.Supp. 730 , aff’d 594 F.2d 354 (1978), cert. denied 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979).
discussed Cited "see" Canlis v. San Joaquin Sheriff's Posse Comitatus
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979) (tenant organizers); Lessman v. McCormick, 591 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1979) (debtors); Bova v. Pipefitters & Plumbers Local 60, AFL-CIO, 554 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1977) (non-union employee); McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (bankrupts); Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, 524 F.2d 818 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1683 , 48 L.Ed.2d 187 (1976) (sex based discrimination); Bellamy v. Mason's Stores, Inc., 508…
discussed Cited "see" Canlis v. San Joaquin Sheriff's Posse Comitatus
9th Cir. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979) (tenant organizers); Lessman v. McCormick, 591 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1979) (debtors); Bova v. Pipefitters & Plumbers Local 60, AFL-CIO, 554 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1977) (non-union employee); McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 545 F.2d 919 (5th Cir. 1977) (en banc) (bankrupts); Cohen v. Illinois Institute of Technology, 524 F.2d 818 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 943 , 96 S.Ct. 1683 , 48 L.Ed.2d 187 (1976) (sex based discrimination); Bellamy v. Mason’s Stores, Inc., 5…
discussed Cited "see" Wagar v. Hasenkrug
D. Mont. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354, 356 (3d Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Arnold v. Tiffany, 359 F.Supp. 1034, 1036 (C.D.Cal.1973), aff’d on other grnds., 487 F.2d 216 (9th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 984 , 94 S.Ct. 1578 , 39 L.Ed.2d 881 (1974).
cited Cited "see" Heiskala v. Johnson Space Center Federal Credit Union
S.D. Tex. · 1979 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Carchman v. Korman Corp., *454 594 F.2d 354 (3rd Cir. 1979).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Korotki v. Goughan
D. Maryland · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 898 , 100 S.Ct. 205 , 62 L.Ed.2d 133 (1979); Bethel v. Jendoco Construction Corp., 570 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (3d Cir.1978). 45 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hoopes v. City of Chester
E.D. Pa. · 1979 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
As they quite properly point out, section 1985(c) imposes liability only where there is “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102 , 91 S.Ct. 1790, 1798 , 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971) (footnote omitted); see, e. g., Carchman v. Korman Corp., 594 F.2d 354 (3d Cir. 1979) (per curiam), petition for cert. filed, 48 U.S.L.W. 3001 (U.S. June 25, 1979) (No. 78-1909); Novotny v. Great Am.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Philip CARCHMAN and Marilyn R. Carchman, Appellants,
v.
the KORMAN CORPORATION
78-2178.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Mar 13, 1979.
594 F.2d 354
1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 16267
Paul W. Tressler, Franconia, Pa., for appellants.', Barbara Etkind, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Rosenn, Van Dusen Garth.
Cited by 57 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

ROSENN, Circuit Judge.

In this appeal we must decide whether tenant organizers of a large luxury apartment complex may constitute a class protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (1976) against conspiracies founded upon a “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus.” See Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 102, 91 S.Ct. 1790, 29 L.Ed.2d 338 (1971). Concluding that the class of tenant organizers is beyond the reach of the statute, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

The appellants, Philip and Marilyn Carchman, were tenants in an apartment complex managed by the appellee, the Korman Corporation. As the Carchmans alleged in their complaint, Philip Carchman was an officer in the tenants’ association for the complex and an advocate of tenants’ rights. He participated in a criminal action brought against the Korman Corporation in state court. Solely because of Philip Carchman’s activities as a tenant organizer, the Carchmans have asserted, the Korman Corporation refused to renew their lease. The Carchmans instituted a suit for damages in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, contending in the amended complaint that the Korman Corporation had violated the Carchmans’ rights under the first amendment and had conspired, in contravention of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), to deprive them of equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws. Because the Carchmans did not allege any state action, the district court dismissed their claim based on the first amendment, and this dismissal has not been appealed. The district court also dismissed the count under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. This appeal ensued.

Section 1985(3), in part, forbids conspiracies entered into “for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws . . . .” Seeking to avoid possible constitutional problems, the Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean that “there must be some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra, 403 U.S. at 102, 91 S.Ct. at 1798. (footnote omitted). The Court did not specify what classes, other[*356] than racial ones, might be protected by the statute. The Carchmans argue that “class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus” directed against tenant organizers comes within the scope of Section 1985(3).

In Novotny v. Great American Federal Savings & Loan Association, 584 F.2d 1235 (3d Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 830, 59 L.Ed.2d 30 (1979), this court recently held that classes distinguished by gender fall within the statute. Although reserving the question of what other classes might qualify, the court expressed the following rationale for its conclusion that an animus against women could underlie a violation of the statute:

The principle that individuals should not be discriminated against on the basis of traits for which they bear no responsibility makes discrimination against individuals on the basis of immutable characteristics repugnant to our system. The fact that a person bears no responsibility for gender, combined with the pervasive discrimination practiced against women, and the emerging rejection of sexual stereotyping as incompatible with our ideals of equality convince us that whatever the outer boundaries of the concept, an animus directed against women includes the elements of a “class-based invidiously discriminatory” motivation.

Id. at 1243 (footnotes omitted). Novotny did not define the “outer boundaries” of class-based animus but the analysis in that case is sufficient to show that tenant organizers do not constitute a class protected by the statute. Unlike racial or sexual animus, animus against tenant organizers is not based upon “immutable characteristics” for which the members of the class have no responsibility. [1] Nor are we persuaded that tenant organizers have been the victims of the historically pervasive discrimination practiced against women.

•We therefore hold that tenant organizers do not constitute one of the classes protected by 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against class-based animus. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. Costs taxed against the appellants.

1

. Being a tenant organizer is not an “accident of birth.” See Novotny v. Great American Fed eral Savings & Loan Ass’n., supra, 584 F.2d at 1243.