… Continue Reading
Section 4201(a) creates a new judicial procedure – called “group actions” – that workers can use when bringing employment discrimination cases. The requirements for establishing a group action are the same as the pre-Dukes requirements for maintaining a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure—namely,
After Dukes, many commentators bemoaned that the class action was dead. At the very least, many argued (as did some last week at DePaul Law School’s Symposium on Class Action Rollback) that the Title VII class action is likely on its last legs.
If so, no one told the plaintiffs’ counsel prosecuting McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith (7th Cir. 2012), where the Seventh Circuit just reversed denial of a class seeking injunctive relief and certification of a class for the purpose of determining whether disparate-impact discrimination had occurred against African-American brokers.
The case … Continue Reading
In 2004, five women applied to be paramedics with the Chicago fire department, a demanding job with a demanding application process. While they were otherwise qualified, these five women, for whatever reason, did not pass the city’s physical ability test. After they were removed from the city’s eligibility list, they sued the city in Ernst v. City of Chicago (2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1003 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 5, 2012)), alleging that the test violated Title VII.
If that were the whole story, there would be no reason for me to write about it. But in 2011, three years … Continue Reading
In a decision that has already garnered massive press coverage and commentary the Supreme Court yesterday granted certiorari in the case that will be known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The 9th Circuit’s opinion affirmed certification of the largest-ever employment class action. (Too large, in Wal-Mart’s opinion.)
The Supreme Court will not review all of the issues involved in the petition for certiorari. It has limited itself to Wal-Mart’s Question 1 (roughly: when can plaintiffs seek Rule 23(b)(2) certification for a class seeking money damages), and has ordered briefing on an additional question:
“Whether the class certification ordered … Continue Reading
Many apologies for providing you all with just a linkdump for my Tuesday entry, but I’m lying in bed with a triple-digit fever. Still, there are certainly other legal blogs that do a thoughtful job of covering class-action issues, and I’m lucky that several of them have great entries right now.
- Justice Scalia has stayed a Louisiana state court ruling requiring tobacco companies to pay into a $241 million dollar "quit smoking" fund. His reason: it’s "significantly possible" that the Court may overturn the decision on constitutional grounds. Specifically: “the extent to which class treatment may constitutionally reduce the normal requirements
All too often, courts and class-action litigants take the question of commonality for granted. But, when framed properly, the question of commonality can provide a court with the tools necessary to engage in a truly rigorous analysis of a proposed class.
In his recent essay "Common Answers for Class Certification," noted professor Richard Nagareda takes the Ninth Circuit’s recent Dukes decision and uses it as a platform to discuss what commonality really means in the context of a class action. In doing so, he provides an excellent analysis of how defense counsel can frame the question of commonality … Continue Reading
Commonality is rarely the subject of much discussion in class certification. The plaintiff often treats it as a perfunctory hurdle, subsumed into the more difficult questions of predominance (under Rule 23(b)(3)) or cohesiveness (under Rule 23(b)(2)). But, much like numerosity, commonality is a requirement that may reward careful scrutiny when a defendant opposes class certification.
In Gaston v. Exelon Corp., 247 F.R.D. 75 (E.D. Pa. 2007), a group of African-American employees sued their employer for engaging in various policies (including its promotion and compensation decisions) that they claimed violated Title VII. They sought to represent a class of … Continue Reading
While I was on my self-imposed editing hiatus (shameless plug: The Class Action Playbook comes out in September), the Ninth Circuit handed down its en banc opinion in Dukes v. Wal-Mart. The court worked overtime to tie its opinion to the specific facts and arguments in front of it, which may prevent some generalizing about the opinion. (Not that that has ever stopped legal pundits.)
First, some background: Dukes is a Title VII sex-discrimination case. The plaintiffs alleged that, as women, they received less money for comparable work, and that they were passed over for promotions within … Continue Reading