Multiple Decision-Maker Employment Class Actions
In their Employment Law column, Jeffrey S. Klein and Nicholas J. Pappas discuss the recent application of 'Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes' and its higher threshold for satisfying the commonality standard for class certification in a case involving a single facility and dozens of managers, in contrast to the nationwide claims and thousands of managers at issue in 'Dukes'.
August 12, 2015 at 04:34 PM
10 minute read
Following the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, —U.S. —, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), courts and commentators have widely acknowledged that Dukes established a higher threshold for satisfying the commonality standard for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, relatively few courts have examined the way in which Dukes requires courts to analyze commonality in an employment discrimination class action pertaining to a single facility where the employer delegates broad discretion to multiple managers to make the decisions that plaintiff challenges.
In this month's column, we discuss Dukes' recent application in Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015), a case involving a single facility and dozens of managers, in contrast to the nationwide claims and thousands of managers at issue in Dukes. In Brown, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit claimed to apply the standards enunciated in Dukes, but nevertheless certified a multi-decision-maker class action based not on a finding that all managers applied a common method of decision-making, but largely based on its view of plaintiffs' proffered statistics and anecdotal evidence.
We explain why the Fourth Circuit appears to have incorrectly applied Dukes by failing to appreciate the Supreme Court's focus on the state of mind of those managers alleged to have engaged in discriminatory decision-making. We conclude by recommending strategies that employers might consider in litigating the commonality issue and for avoiding the types of discrimination claims asserted in Brown.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: For Big Law Names, Shorter is Sweeter
- 2Wine, Dine and Grind (Through the Weekend): Summer Associates Thirst For Experience in 'Real Matters'
- 3'That's Disappointing': Only 11% of MDL Appointments Went to Attorneys of Color in 2023
- 4What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 5'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250