New York Archives magazine

FEATURED ARTICLE:

We are pleased to share with you highlights from New York Archives magazine, including at least one feature article in its entirety. Subscribe Today!

'Opening the Airways'

By Jasmine Bumpers and Jamie Brinkman

SCAD pushed airlines to cease discrimination against Black women.

In 1945, New York became the first state in the nation to sign  a work-related civil rights bill  into law. The Ives-Quinn Act, later known as the Law Against Discrimination, prohibited discrimination in employment based on race, creed, color, or national origin. It also established the State Commission Against Discrimination (SCAD) to drive anti-discrimination policymaking, investigate allegations of discrimination, and hold public hearings related to those claims. 

But before it could initiate any action, a complaint had to be filed. Several were, and many pertained to flight-related jobs with airlines. In 1956, SCAD got eighteen airlines that flew in and out of New York to formally agree not to discriminate based on race—a promise largely not kept. 

In 1957, Ithaca-based regional carrier Mohawk Airlines hired the first Black flight hostess in the US, a nurse named Ruth Carol Taylor. However, other airlines were not taking steps to add non-white women to their fleets and discrimination was still rampant. Thus, many Black women seeking employment as flight hostesses had to fight for the opportunity; some of the most notable battles took place in New York State.

Dorothy Franklin vs. Trans World Airlines

On August 29, 1956, twenty-one-year-old Dorothy Franklin, a Black library clerk from Astoria, Queens, applied for a job as a flight hostess with Trans World Airlines (TWA) at LaGuardia Airport. It was a job Franklin, who liked interacting with people, thought suited her. And as a single, female college student in good health and of a certain height and weight, she believed she possessed the qualifications most airlines wanted. Despite seemingly being an ideal fit for the position, TWA rejected her.

Franklin suspected her race was the only reason. So, with support from the Urban League, a civil rights organization, she filed a complaint with SCAD against TWA. In October, the agency assigned Investigating Commissioner J. Edward Conway to investigate her accusations. Conway set up interviews with Franklin, TWA, and others tangentially involved in the hiring process.

During his first interview with Jack Clifford, Director of Industrial Relations for TWA’s Atlantic Region, SCAD field representative Harry Anderson was told the airline did not discriminate and that over the years hundreds of white flight hostess candidates had been rejected. Regarding Franklin, Clifford said she passed TWA’s intelligence and preliminary physical examinations but was not hired because Lucia Toscano, the female employee who interviewed her, found her “ complexion poor, teeth not attractive, [and] legs not shapely.” However, Conway and the field representatives who interviewed Franklin and observed her appearance, both in-person and in photographs SCAD had taken of her in a flight hostess uniform, unanimously agreed that TWA’s “objections to complainant’s physical appearance are not factually accurate and cannot be accepted as valid reasons for her rejection.”

In a subsequent conservation with Clifford, Anderson noted that, “During the past year, about twelve or thirteen Negro girls have applied to TWA for flight hostess jobs. None of these  has been accepted.” Anderson also discovered that, in its eighteen years of existence, the airline had “never employed a Negro in any flight  capacity, including pilot, co-pilot, radio man, flight engineer, navigator or flight hostess.”

In an attempt to remedy the situation, Conway arranged for Franklin to be re-interviewed by Clifford in January 1957. Once the interview concluded, Clifford made no offer to hire Franklin as a flight hostess but said that if she could speak a foreign language fluently, he would consider hiring her as a ground hostess. Troublingly to the investigators, in the airline’s “ Non-Supervisory Job Description” form for ground hostesses, the appearance qualifications listed were virtually identical to the ones listed for flight hostesses, and Franklin still sought the position of flight  hostess. Conway continued to try to find a way to amicably resolve the matter, but TWA held its position and informed him that further discussions would be “fruitless.”

In his Determination After Investigation dated April 22, 1957, Conway concluded that probable cause existed to credit the allegations made by Franklin and stated the following: “I am of the opinion that when complainant applied for the position of flight hostess with respondent, she fully met all of the qualifications specified for the position of flight hostess viz., education, age, weight, height, appearance, health and being single. I believe that respondent's stated reason for not hiring complainant is merely a contrived excuse for the purpose of concealing respondent's true reason for her rejection, namely, her color.”

Due to the failure to “arrive at a satisfactory conciliation agreement,” Conway called for a public hearing, which was scheduled for July 9, 1957. But the hearing, postponed and rescheduled twice, never took place. 

TWA, perhaps knowing SCAD would likely rule against the company and that changes in its hiring practices would be mandated, informed the agency in February 1958 that it would add a Black flight hostess to its ranks within ninety days; in May the company hired 21-year-old Margaret Grant. The selection of Grant, the first Black woman to be hired as a flight hostess by a major airline, was lauded by newspapers like The New York Times and the Jackson Advocate.

When Franklin was told about TWA’s decision, she decided to withdraw  her complaint, telling the Long Island Star-Journal that the “important thing is that a Negro stewardess will be hired.” And though she never became a flight hostess, her decision to challenge TWA was hailed by many. At the company’s announcement about Grant, SCAD chairman Charles Abrams praised Franklin for the “instrumental part” she played in “opening the  airways to members of her race.” 

Grant’s tenure as a flight hostess was cut short when, during her training, it was discovered she had sickle cell trait, a blood disorder. TWA said flying would be hazardous to her health and let her go. It hired another Black woman, twenty-one-year-old Mary Tiller, the following year. 

Patricia Banks vs. Capital Airlines
In 1956, a fashion magazine advertisement for the Grace Downs Air Career School in Manhattan caught the attention of Patricia Banks, a nineteen-year-old college student from Jamaica, Queens. Banks loved talking with people and would later note that “back in those days African American people didn’t have the opportunity to travel that much, so when I saw the article, I said this would be a great opportunity.”

Inspired, Banks interviewed and was accepted to the three-month  evening course for flight hostesses. These were long days for Banks, who worked full-time as an IBM operator for Consolidated Edison and attended evening classes four days a week. As far as she could tell, she was the only Black woman at the school. But the long nights learning about airline codes, time zones, and charm felt worth it, as she worked hard and earned high marks. 

In July 1956, representatives from Capital Airlines came to the school to interview students for flight hostess positions. The airline and school had a contract that, amongst other things, stated that the school would be the primary source for new flight hostesses. Day and evening course students were interviewed by airline representatives who judged them on their appearance and demeanor, watching them walk and noting accents and any imperfections on their faces. Those approved were notified and placed in a special two-week course on Capital Airline procedures. Others were rejected or placed on a “would see again” list, with the understanding that the students would contact the airline when they had “fulfilled the things that were in doubt” and request another interview. Those placed on the list did not receive notification. According to airline representatives, it was the responsibility of the student to ask the school about the outcome of her interview.

When Banks asked about hers, the school’s program director, Jean Williams, was evasive and did not tell Banks that she had been placed on the “would see again” list. Williams did, however, bring up the purported issues the airline representatives had cited; a tooth in need of fixing and a lack of experience working with the public. She encouraged her to take a ground job.

But Banks, who regularly interacted with members of the public while employed at a luncheonette, felt she had the front facing experience the airline desired and still wanted a flight hostess job. So, shortly after graduating, she had her back tooth—which could not be seen unless she was smiling widely—fixed, and contacted the school in December 1956 to see  if she could reinterview. And though other students had been given such an opportunity, she was told Capital did not want to see her a second time.

Unhappy with the outcome, a friend of Banks suggested she speak with Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. He recommended filing a complaint with SCAD and an  investigation was launched, with Commissioner Elmer A. Carter and field representative Jean Brown assigned to lead. After reviewing the twenty-nine-page report submitted  by Carter, SCAD deemed Banks’s complaint valid and ordered a public hearing that was held in July 1959.

At the hearing, Capital, represented by attorney Macon Arthur, claimed the airline did not maintain a policy  of barring Black men and women from employment. Capital argued on technicalities, such as whether Banks had filed her complaint in a timely manner and whether the Commission had the authority to oversee this  case. However, Solomon J. Heifetz, a counselor for SCAD who argued in support of Banks, poked holes in those arguments. Heifetz attempted to prove that the discrimination existed and was ongoing, and that Banks  was on the receiving end of it, using exhibits and testimony provided by her, field representative Brown, and Capital interviewers Joy Geddes and Althea O’Hanlon.

Heifetz highlighted the employment figures that were unearthed during the investigation, noting that, of Capital’s 1,350 air crew employees, nearly 600 f whom were flight hostesses, “not a single one” was Black. And during his examinations of witnesses, it was revealed that over the years, several white women who never graduated from a flight career school or had public work experience like Banks had been hired by Capital. He also pointed out that even after addressing the minor issue with her back tooth, Banks was not allowed to interview a second time like other white students on the “would see again” list, some of whom were given the chance to interview multiple times before finally receiving a job offer.  

In his closing argument, Heifetz said the pieces of documentary  evidence and witness testimony presented were like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. “Standing by themselves, they represent a very unclear and jagged edge, but when they are all put together, they show the light of day and the general pattern that is pro-duced will show you Commissioners that the charges of the amended complaint should be sustained.”

On February 29, 1960, SCAD  commissioners ruled in favor of Banks. They ordered Capital to hire her with-in thirty days, given that she passed the typical testing and training “under the same conditions and standards as were applied to white applicants in December 1956.” It also ordered the airline to end its discriminatory practices and adhere to the Law Against Discrimination. 

After a three-year battle, Banks was hired by Capital Airlines in May 1960. But all was not as she had hoped. In her new role, she felt pres-sure to be perfect and to preserve the path for future Black flight hostesses. Banks also faced unpleasant racial dis-crimination while flying through the South. After one year of service, she resigned to pursue her education. 

Slowly Changing
The landscape for prospective Black flight hostesses based in and out of New York eventually improved. The federal Civil Rights Act was passed  in 1964 prohibiting employment  discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. Employment discrimination based on sex was also prohibited, making it  illegal for airlines to require women  to be unmarried, a barrier that  prevented many women from having long-term careers as flight hostesses. The law also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a SCAD-like agency with more power to enforce compliance.

Around this same time, major airlines like TWA and Pan Am, hoping to attract more Black consumers, started running ads for flight hostesses and other air crew positions in Black-centered magazines like Ebony and Jet. By the early 1970s, approximately 1,000 Black women were employed by US airlines. Still, they only made up roughly 3 percent of the total population of flight hostesses.

In 2022, the US Census Bureau reported that 14.2 percent of male and female flight attendants were Black. And though the percentage remains relatively low, it has gradually increased, as has the number of flight attendants from other racial and  ethnic groups, thanks to the courage of Dorothy Franklin, Patricia Banks, and SCAD. 

The Archives Connection

The New York State Archives holds various records documenting the activities of SCAD, renamed in 1962 as the State Commission for Human Rights, and in 1968 as the Division of Human Rights. Series B2003 contains a SCAD newsletter documenting the hearing of Patricia Banks. Complaint and hearing-related material for Dorothy Franklin  and Patricia Banks come from Series 19281, Subject and Correspondence Files. Series 10409, Discrimination Case Files, contains Dorothy Franklin’s SCAD case file, which also includes TWA airline ephemera, newspa-per clippings, and photographs of Franklin, Patricia Banks, and Margaret Grant.  

Jasmine Bumpers and Jamie Brinkman are staff members at the New York State Archives.

For more about  the Law Against Discrimination,

“Spotlight on New York’s Law Against Discrimination” by Brian Purnell, Spring 2011.

To register for our January 27th Online Speaker Series on this topic click here.