Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-02659-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 1 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

James M. Finberg (SBN 114850) 

Bill Lann Lee (SBN 108452) 

Lexi J. Hazam (SBN 224457) 

Chimène I. Keitner (SBN 226948) 

Nirej S. Sekhon (SBN 213358) 

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & 

 BERNSTEIN, LLP 

275 Battery Street, 30th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339 

Telephone: (415) 956-1000 

Facsimile: (415) 956-1008 

Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) 

Guy B. Wallace (SBN 176151) 

Joshua Konecky (SBN 182897) 

JOHN BURRIS (SBN 69888) 

7677 Oakport Bldg., Suite 1120 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 839-5210 

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 

KAY MCKENZIE PARKER (SBN 143140) 

703 Market Street, Suite 1401 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Telephone: (415) 227-9622 

Facsimile: (415) 227-4522 

WAUKEEN Q. MCCOY (SBN 168228) 

703 Market Street, Suite 1407 

San Francisco, CA 94103 

Telephone: (415) 675-7705 

Facsimile: (415) 675-2530 

SCHNEIDER & WALLACE 

180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 421-7100 

Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 

MICHAEL S. DAVIS (SBN 160045) 

345 Hill Street 

San Francisco, CA 94109 

Telephone: (415) 282-4315 

Facsimile: (415) 358-5576 

Class Counsel and Counsel for the Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DERRICK SATCHELL, KALINI BOYKIN, 

VALERIE BROWN, RICK GONZALES, 

CYNTHIA GUERRERO, RACHEL 

HUTCHINS, TYRONE MERRITT, KELVIN 

SMITH, SR., and KEN STEVENSON, on 

behalf of themselves and all others similarly 

situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

FEDEX EXPRESS, a Delaware corporation, 

Defendant. 

Case No. C 03-2659 SI; C 03-2878 SI 

CLASS ACTION

JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: CLASS NOTICE__________

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 1 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 1 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 2 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

Pursuant to this Court’s Order Re: Plaintiffs’ Motion of Class Certification of 

September 28, 2005 (“Class Certification Order”), the parties met and conferred concerning a 

form of class notice and a plan for providing same to the class members. 

JOINT STATEMENT

The parties agreed on a notice plan and all but one sentence in the proposed notice 

attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Class Notice”). 

Plaintiffs believe that page 2, line 22 of the Class Notice should read: 

(1) Claims concerning promotions. 

Plaintiffs believe that Defendant’s proposal incorrectly interprets the Class Certification Order. 

Defendant believes that page 2, line 22 of the Class Notice should read: 

(1) Claims concerning promotions to Checker/Sorter, Courier and 

other driving positions, and Operations Manager. 

Defendant takes this position based on the language on page 16, lines 10-11 of the Class 

Certification Order. 

Defendant’s Position and Reasoning

Defendant contends that Page 2, Line 22, of the Class Notice should read: 

(1) Claims concerning promotions to Checker/Sorter, Courier and 

other driving positions, and Operations Manager. 

Contrary to Plaintiffs’ argument, this language is not based on an “interpretation” of the Court’s 

certification order. It uses the exact language used by the Court in its Rule 23(c)(1)(B) 

specification of the issues being certified. (Order at 16:10-11.) What Plaintiffs are seeking is a 

dramatic expansion of the certification order to cover any and all promotion claims of any kind that 

any member of the class may seek to assert – a result not supported by their motion papers or the 

record before the Court. 

What Plaintiffs essentially are doing in an untimely and inappropriate manner is 

seeking reconsideration of the Court’s class certification rulings, and a modification of its Order, 

without following the procedures established for such motions. They seem to be arguing that the 

Court could not possibly have meant what it wrote, because they asked that a much broader set of 

issues be certified. They ignore Defendant’s demonstration in its opposition papers that 

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 2 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 3 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

(a) Plaintiffs had presented no proof at all of discrimination in promotions to the vast majority of 

hourly positions; (b) in many positions minorities were more likely to receive positions than 

whites, even under Plaintiffs’ own analyses; (c) with respect to the Material Handler position, 

Plaintiffs’ own study showed, for example, that Latinos were more likely than whites to be 

promoted to the position (Drogin Dep. 123-25 and Ex. 10 to the Deposition: Douglas Decl. 

Ex. H), and JCATS availability data demonstrated no significant differences in African-American 

and white promotion rates to the position (Baker Report, Table 2.1); (d) Plaintiffs had cherrypicked only a few jobs (those identified by the Court in its issue specification) in presenting their 

promotion analyses, and even had used stale data to get “significance” as to some of them; and 

(e) any certification had to be limited to specific issues on which Plaintiffs had made an 

evidentiary showing. Plaintiffs also ignore the fact that Defendant argued that no promotion 

issues should be certified because the data before the Court conclusively demonstrated the 

absence of any pattern of discrimination in promotion across all jobs. Apparently, the Court 

rejected Plaintiffs’ request for a blanket certification of any type of promotion claim on which the 

Plaintiffs might choose to focus in the future, rejected Defendant’s argument that no promotion 

claim should be certified because of the undisputed evidence showing the absence of 

discrimination as to most hourly positions in the Western Region, and instead certified a class 

based on the specific evidence Plaintiffs had presented. Plaintiffs’ argument that the Court should 

have done more simply rehashes the arguments they unsuccessfully presented in their moving 

papers. 

It also is worth noting that FedEx, too, has several concerns about the scope of the 

Court’s certification of promotion issues. Those concerns include, inter alia, the issue of 

promotions of the minority hourly class to Operations Manager, when Plaintiffs conceded in their 

moving papers the absence of such discrimination against African-American hourly employees, 

and their experts’ own reports showed the absence of any statistically significant results against 

Hispanic hourly employees during the liability period the Court ruled applies to the claim (2002 

forward). Defendant’s concerns also include the Court’s certification of a promotion claim with 

respect to promotions from casual and permanent hourly positions to Checker/Sorter and Courier 

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 3 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 3 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 4 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

and other driving positions despite the fact that there is no named plaintiff asserting such a claim. 

Defendant is not contesting the inclusion of such claims in the class notice, however, because doing 

so is not a proper means of raising the point. 

The Court’s order is the Court’s order. Arguments over the language of the 

notice to the class simply are not a proper means of modifying it. The notice should accurately 

reflect the Court’s rulings, not alter or modify them, and not mislead the class as to the scope and 

breadth of the issues certified. 

Defendant’s proposed language is taken verbatim from the Court’s certification 

order. Plaintiffs’ proposed language is far more expansive than the Court’s, and it inaccurately 

informs the class of the nature of the promotion claims the Court has certified for class 

adjudication. It is Defendant’s proposed language (indeed, the Court’s language) that should be 

adopted, not Plaintiffs’. 

Plaintiffs’ Position and Reasoning

Plaintiffs believe that page 2, line 22 of the Class Notice should read: 

(1) Claims concerning promotions. 

Plaintiffs believe that Defendant’s proposal incorrectly interprets the Class Certification Order. 

In describing Plaintiffs’ claims, the Class Certification Order states that “the 

representation of minorities drops at each step up the promotions ladder” (Order at 2:16); that 

“promotions to permanent positions allegedly take place through a ‘tap-on-the-shoulder’ process” 

(id. at 2:24-25); and that FedEx “uses a discriminatory performance evaluation system that causes 

under-promotion of minority employees” (id. at 3:12-13). 

Plaintiffs supported their allegations regarding discrimination in promotions by 

offering, among other evidence, an expert report by Dr. Richard Drogin showing statistically 

significant adverse impact in promotions including, but not limited to, with respect to AfricanAmericans, the move from Handler into the higher-paid Material Handler job, which FedEx 

identifies as a promotion. (Drogin Rpt. ¶ 28, finding -11.34 standard deviations based on data 

from 1999-2003.) Dr. Drogin’s analysis of the JCATS system for applications to hourly positions 

indicated statistically significant differences in overall approval rates (id. ¶¶ 45 & 47, finding -

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 4 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 4 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 5 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

27.79 standard deviations for African Americans and -13.24 standard deviations for Latinos); 

overall selection rates (id. ¶¶ 46 & 48, finding -7.19 standard deviations for African Americans 

and -4.74 standard deviations for Latinos); approval rates for minority employees with deficiency 

circumstances (id. ¶ 39 & n.15); job ranking category pass overs (id. ¶¶ 40-41); and CEV pass 

overs (id. ¶ 43). Dr. Drogin also found that the BST has statistically significant adverse impact 

on minority applicants for Customer Service Agent positions, in addition to Courier and RTD 

positions. (Drogin Rpt. tbl. 18, finding -39.22 standard deviations for African Americans and -

30.40 standard deviations for Latinos; see also tbl. 19 (similar findings for first-time test takers).) 

The Court found that common questions exist regarding promotions, including 

“whether FedEx’s promotions ... policies and practices in the Western Region are arbitrary, 

subjective and discretionary and thus susceptible to discriminatory application by predominantly 

non-minority managers,” “whether the Basic Skills Test [which is required for promotions to 

Courier, Ramp Transport Driver, and Customer Service Agent] has been properly validated,” and 

“whether FedEx denies minorities equal promotional opportunities.” (Order at 7:1-4; see also id. 

at 16-17 (finding that “Plaintiffs’ performance evaluation, discipline, promotion, and 

compensation claims present common questions of law and fact”.) Responding to FedEx’s 

argument that, for example, Plaintiff Rachel Hutchins only sought a promotion to a Customer 

Service Agent position, the Court found that “[w]ith respect to Plaintiffs’ promotion claims, there 

is no requirement that Plaintiffs have a class representative for every job category.” (Id. at 10:17-

18; see also id. at 12:12-20 (enumerating policies and practices common to all promotions 

decisions).) The Court also found that Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief with respect to all 

promotions, for example by “permitting casual employees to apply for and view the posting of 

jobs on the JCATS system” and by eliminating the BST requirement. (Id. at 12:24-25.) Finally, 

in discussing the applicable statutes of limitations for class members’ promotions claims, the 

Court indicated that the promotion from any casual to any permanent position would form a “new 

and distinct” relationship with FedEx (id. at 14:23-25), whereas promotions “from one hourly 

permanent position to another” would not. (Id. at 15:2-3, indicating illustrative rather than 

exhaustive nature of three possible hourly promotions by using the term “such as”.) 

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 5 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 5 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 6 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

For these reasons, Plaintiffs do not believe the Class Certification Order can be 

properly construed as certifying only claims for the specific promotions identified by Defendants, 

and the Class Notice should not be so limited. 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

The parties propose and stipulate as follows: 

1. By November 30 or the earliest practicable date thereafter, FedEx will 

provide Class Counsel with a computer-readable list of the full names, employee ID number(s), 

most current known addresses, and Social Security numbers of all members of the Minority 

Employee Class and the African-American Lower-Level Manager Class (“Class List”). 

2. Class Counsel may use the social security numbers included in the Class 

List to (1) match class member names with the personnel and payroll data provided by FedEx; 

and (2) find the current addresses of class members for whom the Class List contains an outdated 

or incorrect address. In the course of so doing, Class Counsel may provide the Social Security 

numbers to a claims administrator or a statistician. Other than these uses, Class Counsel and the 

claims administrator and statistician shall agree to treat the social security numbers as confidential 

information, and not share them with third parties. 

3. Within 7 days of receiving the Class List, Class Counsel, or a claims 

administrator to be retained by Class Counsel, will cause to be sent by first-class mail a notice 

substantially in the form of Exhibit A (“Class Notice”), as approved by this Court. 

4. Within 3 days of this Order, Class Counsel will post the Class Notice and a 

Spanish translation of the Class Notice online at www.racecaseagainstfedex.com. 

Dated: October 31, 2005 LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 

By: ___/s/ James M. Finberg _____________ James M. Finberg 

Attorneys for Representative Plaintiffs and the Classes 

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 6 of 7
 Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 6 of 7
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

478827.2 - 7 - JOINT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

C 03-2659 SI and C 03 3278 SI 

Dated: October 31, 2005 SEYFARTH & SHAW LLP 

By: __ /s/ Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. ___

 Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. 

Gilmore F. Diekmann, Jr. (SBN 050400) 

560 Mission Street, Suite 3100 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 397-2823 

Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 

Attorneys for Defendant FEDEX EXPRESS 

 

ORDER

 The foregoing is stipulated and approved and is so ORDERED. 

Dated: _____________________ __________________________________________ 

 THE HONORABLE SUSAN ILLSTON 

 United States District Court Judge for the 

 Northern District of California 

Case 3:03-cv-02659 Document 369-1 Filed 10/31/2005 Page 7 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Susan Illston

Case 3:03-cv-02659-SI Document 381 Filed 11/29/05 Page 7 of 7