Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05154/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05154-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Civil Rights

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

GLADYS ALAS, et al. PLAINTIFFS

VS. CASE NO. 05-5154

ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES, INC. DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Now on this 21 day of September, 2006, comes on to be st

considered Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 13).

The Court, being well and sufficiently advised, concludes that the

motion should be DENIED. The Court finds and orders as follows

with respect thereto:

1. Plaintiffs Gladys Alas, Maria Carmen Babb, Norberto

Dublan, and Isabel Lugo bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981

and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,

et seq. The named plaintiffs are current and former employees of

Defendant Rockline Industries, Inc. (“Rockline”), which operates a

manufacturing facility in Springdale, Arkansas.

2. Plaintiffs characterize themselves as “native Spanishspeaker[s] with a severely limited ability to communicate in a

language other than Spanish, in either written or verbal form.”

(Doc. 1 ¶ ¶ 1 - 4.) Plaintiffs allege that beginning in 2002,

Rockline implemented a new production model called the “High

Performance Operating Teams” or “HPOT” program. According to

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 27 Filed 09/21/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
2

plaintiffs, they were required to participate in training and take

a series of tests, offered solely in English, in order to achieve

requisite HPOT training levels. Plaintiffs seek to bring this

action on behalf of all “current and/or former employees of

[Rockline] with Hispanic surnames, or who are native Spanishspeakers,” who have been demoted, terminated, or otherwise

adversely affected by their inability to successfully complete

Rockline’s English-only HPOT training and tests. (Doc. 1 ¶ ¶ 11,

15 - 17.)

3. In order to maintain a class action, the burden is on the

prospective class representatives to establish that the

prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) have been

met. See Coleman v. Watt, 40 F.3d 255, 258-59 (8 Cir. 1994). The th

first showing must be that the class is so numerous that joinder of

all members is impracticable.

Plaintiffs assert that, through discovery, they have

identified approximately “100 or so” employees with Hispanic

surnames that have been affected by Rockline’s English-only HPOT

training and testing procedures. Rockline responds that

identifying the number of putative class members “based on nothing

more than Spanish surnames ... is inappropriate as it does not

control for variants such as non-Hispanic marriage into a Hispanic

family, national origin, and English fluency regardless of surname

or national origin.” (Doc. 18 at pg. 13.)

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 27 Filed 09/21/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
3

4. While the exact number of class members need not be

pleaded or proved, impracticability of joinder must be positively

shown, and cannot be speculative. See Golden v. City of Columbus,

404 F.3d 950, 966 (6 Cir. 2004). The Court agrees with Rockline th

that reference to the number of employees with Hispanic surnames

does not suffice for purposes of proving numerosity. The potential

class in this case consists of only those employees who were

adversely affected by Rockline’s English-only training and testing

procedures. It would be purely speculative to assume that all

employees with Hispanic surnames were adversely affected, as this

would require the Court to make the inappropriate assumption that

none of these employees were fluent in English. 

The only evidence plaintiffs present regarding the number of

Hispanic employees who were not fluent in English is the affidavit

of Plaintiff Norberto Dublan. In this affidavit, Dublan states, “I

socialize both at work and outside of work with my Hispanic

coworkers and I estimate a large percentage of these Hispanic

workers ... cannot speak or understand English well enough to pass

tests given only in English.” (Doc. 14 Ex. 11 ¶ 4.) This

unrefined estimation is not sufficient to satisfy the “rigorous

analysis” this Court is required to engage in when evaluating the

plaintiffs’ proof of numerosity. See General Tel. Co. of the

Southwest v. Falco, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (1982). 

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 27 Filed 09/21/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
4

5. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that

plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden in establishing that

the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (Doc.

13) is therefore DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 27 Filed 09/21/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>