Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05154/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05154-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gladys Alas
Plaintiff
Maria Carmen Babb
Plaintiff
Norberto Dublan
Plaintiff
Isabel Lugo
Plaintiff
Rockline Industries, Inc.
Defendant

Document Text:

Plaintiffs originally sought to bring this action on behalf of all 1

Rockline employees “with Hispanic surnames, or who [were] native Spanishspeakers.” (Doc. 1.) The Court, however, denied plaintiff’s Motion for Class

Certification (Doc. 13), finding that plaintiffs had failed to establish that the

class was so numerous that joinder of all members was impracticable. (Doc. 27.)

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

O R D E R

Now on this 16 day of April, 2007, comes on to be considered th

Defendant’s Motion to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs (Doc. 28). 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 1

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 being of “Hispanic

nations or origin” and as “native Spanish-speaker[s] with a

severely limited ability to communicate in a language other than

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
2

Spanish, in either written or verbal form.” (Doc. 1 ¶ ¶ 1 - 4,

23.) Plaintiffs allege:

* that beginning in April 2002, they were “subjected to

[Rockline’s] ‘No-Spanish’ Rule in production and non-production

areas of [Rockline’s] facility” (Doc. 1 ¶ ¶ 1 -4);

* that, beginning in 2002, Rockline implemented a new

production model called the “High Performance Operating Teams” or

“HPOT” program;

* that plaintiffs were required to participate in training

and take a series of tests, offered solely in English, in order to

achieve requisite HPOT training levels;

* that, in December 2003, plaintiff Lugo was demoted, her

pay was cut, and she was required to take a new battery of tests

“due to her failure to pass the English-only test” (Id. ¶ 4);

* that plaintiff Alas and plaintiff Dublan were terminated

on November 5, 2004, for failing “to pass the tests which were

taught and administered only in English” (Id. ¶ ¶ 1, 2); and

* that plaintiff Babb had “process skills certification

points” taken away from her and was required to “retake

certification tests that she had already passed” (Doc. 29 at pg.

4).

3. Plaintiffs assert that Rockline discriminated against

them on the basis of their national origin by implementing the NoCase 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
3

Spanish Rule and the English-only HPOT training and testing

program.

4. In the motion now before the Court, Rockline moves to

sever the claims of the four plaintiffs, arguing that each

individual plaintiff’s claims are factually distinct and that a

joint trial of these “unrelated” claims would confuse the jury and

prejudice Rockline. (Docs. 28, 29.)

5. Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

provides:

All persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they

assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the

alternative in respect of or arising out of the same

transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to

all these persons will arise in the action.

Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20(b) and 42(b),

the Court has discretion to order separate trials “in furtherance

of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will

be conducive to expedition and economy.” 

6. The Court first addresses whether plaintiffs’ claims

arise out of the same transactions or occurrences. In Mosley v.

General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8 Cir. 1974), the th

Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted these terms as used in

Rule 20 to “permit all reasonably related claims for relief by ...

different parties to be tried in a single proceeding. Absolute

identity of all events is unnecessary.” The Eighth Circuit found

that the ten plaintiffs in Mosley had asserted a right to relief

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
4

arising out of the same transactions or occurrences: each of the

plaintiffs had alleged that they had been injured by a company-wide

policy purportedly designed to discriminate against blacks.

Likewise, in the present case, each of the four plaintiffs

alleges that they have been discriminated against on the basis of

their national origin by Rockline’s policies regarding the NoSpanish Rule and the English-only HPOT training and testing

program. The Court, therefore, concludes that the plaintiffs’ have

met the first requisite for joinder under Rule 20(a) by

establishing that their claims arise out of the same transactions

or occurrences.

7. The second requirement to sustain joinder under Rule

20(a) is that a question of law or fact common to all the parties

will arise in the action. The Eighth Circuit elaborated on this

issue in Mosley:

The right to relief here depends on the ability to

demonstrate that each of the plaintiffs was wronged by

racially discriminatory policies on the part of the

defendants .... The discriminatory character of the

defendants’ conduct is thus basic to each plaintiff’s

recovery. The fact that each plaintiff may have suffered

different effects from the alleged discrimination is

immaterial for the purposes of determining the common

question of law or fact.

Id. at 1334.

Similarly, in the present case, while the plaintiffs assert

that they suffered different adverse actions as a result of the

alleged discrimination, the alleged discriminatory character of

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
5

Rockline’s policies is basic to each plaintiff’s recovery. Whether

Rockline’s policies discriminated against plaintiffs on the basis

of their national origin presents a common question of law and

fact. Thus, the Court concludes that the plaintiffs have satisfied

the second requisite for joinder under Rule 20(a).

8. The Court next addresses whether, even though the

requirements for joinder have been met, separate trials should be

ordered to avoid prejudice, or in furtherance of convenience,

expedition and economy.

The purpose of [Rule 20(a)] is to promote trial

convenience and expedite the final determination of

disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits.... Single

trials generally tend to lessen the delay, expense and

inconvenience to all concerned.... Under the Rules, the

impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible

scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties;

joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly

encouraged. 

Id. at 1333-34 (citing United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383

U.S. 715, 724 (1966)).

Were the Court to grant Rockline’s motion to sever and order

four separate trials of each individual plaintiff’s claims, it

would undoubtedly prolong the resolution of these claims and result

in significant additional costs to the Court and to the parties,

including, as plaintiffs point out, the hiring of an interpreter on

four separate occasions. Four separate trials would also

inconvenience the Court, the parties, and witnesses who might be

called to testify in all four actions. Further, the Court does not

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>
6

believe that Rockline will be unduly prejudiced in any way or that

the jury would be confused by having the four plaintiffs’ related

claims tried jointly.

9. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that

Defendant’s Motion to Sever Claims of Plaintiffs (Doc. 28) should

be and hereby is DENIED.

Within ten days of the date of this order, the parties are

directed to file a status report with the Court stating whether

they have completed discovery and, if not, a proposed deadline for

the completion of discovery and for the filing of dispositive

motions. The Court will then issue a final scheduling order

setting this matter for trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/S/JIMM LARRY HENDREN 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 5:05-cv-05154-JLH Document 48 Filed 04/16/07 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: <pageID>