## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 7,200 6 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT KAR L A C AR P E NT E R; L I NDA WI L KE RS ON; S HE RY L L ANDON ; S ANDY WI L CY NS KI ; S ONYA P HI L L I P S ; CH AR L E NE CH AP M AN; CH E RY L L E E P E RS I NGE R; NE NA HOL DE R; RU BY RY HE RD , ind ividu all y& o n b eh alf o f a ll o thers s i mi l a r l ys i tu a t e d ; M AR Y DE AN; F AI T H B RI DGE WATE R; VE RL E NE M A H O L M E S , i n d i v i d u a l l y, P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants / C ross A pp el l ees,

v. N os . 04- 3334, 04- 3350, 04- 3351 T HE BO E I NG C OM P ANY, D efen dan t- A pp el l ee/ C ross A p p e llan t.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- KAR L A C AR P E NT E R; L I NDA WI L KE RS ON; S HE RY L L ANDON ; S ANDY WI L CY NS KI ; S ONYA P HI L L I P S ; CH AR L E NE CH AP M AN; CH E RY L L E E P E RS I NGE R; NE NA HOL DE R; RU BY RY HE RD , i ndi vi dual l y , and on beha l f of a l l other per s ons s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, P et i t i on ers ,-2-

v. T HE BO E I NG C OM P ANY, R e sp o n d e n t. N o. 04- 602

AP P EA LS F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF KANS AS ( D. C. NO . 0 2 - CV- 1 0 1 9 - W EB) JeffreyT . S prung , H agen s B erm an S ob ol Shap i ro L L P , argued for Plai nti ffs - A p p e llan ts/C ro ss -A p p e llee s, (S tev e W . B e rm a n , A n d re w M . V o lk , Iv yD . A ra i, H agens B erm an Sobol Shapi r o L L P, Seatt l e, W as hi ngt on, and M ark B . H ut t on and D ere k S . C ase y , H u tt o n & H u tt o n , W ichita, K an sas, w ith h im o n the b ri ef). Ja m e s M . A rm stro n g , F o u lsto n S ief k in L L P , arg u e d fo r D e fe n d a n t - App e l l e e / Cr o s s - App e l l a n t , ( M a ryKath l e e n Ba b c o c k , Tr i s h a A. Th e l e n , Ca r o l yn L. M atthew s , Foul s t on Si efki n L L P, W i chi t a, K ans as , and C . G eoff r eyW ei r i ch, P au l, H asti n g s, Jan o fsk y& W alke r L L P , A tl an ta, G eo rgia, w ith h im o n the b ri ef). M aryD ean, Fai th B ri dg ew at er and V erl ene M aho l m es, pro se P l ai nti ffs - A ppel l ant s / C r os s - A ppel l ees , s ubm i t t ed a br i ef. B efo re HA RTZ , AN DE RS ON , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. P lain tiffs a p p e a l fro m th e d istric t co u rt’s d isp o sitio n o f th e e m p lo y m e n tdi s cr i m i nat i on cl ai m s offem al e em pl oyees att he B oei ng C om pany’ s W i chi t a, K ans as , faci l i t y. T hey have s oughtt o br i ng cl as s - acti on cl ai m s al l egi ng s ever al-3-

unl aw ful em pl oym entpr acti ces underboth di s par at e- i m pactand di s par at etr eatm ent theor i es of di s cr i m i nat i on. T he t w o s ubcl as s es r el evantt o thi s appea l ar e a s ubcl as s ofhour l y fem al e w or ker s ( the H our l y Subcl as s ) and a s ubcl as s of s al ar i ed fem al e w or ker s ( the Sal ar i ed Subcl as s ) . B efor e us now ar e both ( 1) the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s s um m ar y j udgm enton the H our l y Subcl as s ’ s di s par at e- i m pact cl ai m r el at i ng t o over t i m e as s i gnm ent s , cert i fi ed by the di s tr i ctcour tas a fi nal j ud gm ent unde r Fed. R . C i v. P . 54 (b) ; and (2) several of the d i stri ctcou rt ’s cl asscert i fi cati on deci s i ons r el at i ng t o both the H our l y and Sal ar i ed Subcl as s es , on w h ic h w e p ro v is io n a lly g ra n te d in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (f). B oei ng has cr os s - appea l ed t o chal l enge the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cl as s cert i fi cati on of t he H our l y Subcl as s ’ s di s par at e- i m pactcl ai m i n the eve ntt hatw e r ever s e the d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n to n t h a tc l a i m. W e affi rm the d i stri ctcou rt ’s sum m ary j ud gm ent because P l ai nti ffs’ sta tistica l ev id e n c e is n o t ad e q u a tely b a se d o n d a ta r e stric ted to p e rso n s e lig ib le fo ro v e r t i me a s s i g n me n t s . T h i s a ffi r ma n c e mo o t s t h e c r o s s - a p p e a l . Al s o , we dis m i ss Pl ai nti ffs’ app eal of the d i stri ctcou rt ’s cl ass- act i on decis i on s becau se t hey w er e notfi l ed w i thi n 10 days oft he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s i ni t i al deci s i on denyi ng cl as s cer t i fi cati on. F i nall y, w e rej ectt he clai m s of three form er cl ass r epr es ent at i ves w ho w er e s tr i pped oft hatdes i gnat i on by the di s tr i ctcour ton the gr ound t hatthey coul d not“fai r l y and ade quat el y pr ot ectt he i nt er es t s oft he class,” F ed . R . C iv. P. 23 (a)(4).-4-

I . BA CKGROUND T i t l e V II of the C i vil R i gh t s A ctof 196 4 p rohi bit s, am on g o ther things, d is c ri m in a tio n o n th e b a s is o f s e x . See 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 2( a) . T w o t ypes of c laim s a re re c o g n ize d u n d e r T itl e V II: d isp a ra te tre a tm e n t an d d isp a ra te im p a c t. “D i s par at e tr eatm ent ” . . . i s t he m os teas i l y under s t ood t ype of dis cri m i nati on . T he em ployer s i m ply treat s som e peo ple l ess favor abl y t han other s beca us e oft hei rr ace , col or , r el i gi on, s ex, or nat i onal or i gi n. Pr oofofdi s cr i m i nat or y m ot i ve i s cr i t i cal , al though i tcan i n s om e s i tuat i ons be i nferr ed fr om t he m er e factofdi ffer ence s in tr e a tm e n t. . . . C l ai m s ofdi s par at e tr eatm entm ay be di s t i ngui s hed fr om cl ai m s thats tr es s “di s par at e i m pact . ” The l at t eri nvol ve em pl oym ent pr acti ces thatar e faci al l y neutr al i n thei rtr eatm entofdi ffer ent gr oups butthati n factfal l m or e har s hl y on one gr oup than another and ca nnotbe j us t i fi ed by bus i nes s nece s s i t y. Pr oofof di s cr i m i nat or y m ot i ve . . . i s notr equi r ed undera di s par at e- i m pact t heor y. E i thertheor y m ay, ofcour s e, be appl i ed t o a par t i cul ars etof fact s. Int ’ l B hd. of

Team s t ers v. Uni t ed Stat es , 431 U . S. 324, 335 n. 15 ( 1977) ( ci t at i ons o m itte d ). I n a di s par at e- i m pactcl ai m t he pl ai nt i ffi s chal l engi ng an em pl oym ent pr acti ce thati s “‘ fai ri n for m , butdi s cr i m i nat or y i n oper at i on. ’ ” B ul l i ngt on v. Uni t ed Ai rLi nes , Inc. , 186 F. 3d 1301, 1312 ( 10th C i r . 1999) ( quot i ng G r i ggs v. D uke Pow erC o. , 401 U . S. 424, 431 ( 1971) , o ve rru led o n o therg ro u n ds b y Na t’ l R . R . P as s engerC or

p. v. M organ , 536 U . S. 101 ( 2002) . “[ A ] pl ai nt i ffm ay es t abl i s h a p rim a fa c ie c a se o f d isp a ra te im p a c t d isc rim in a tio n b y sh o w in g th a t a sp e c ific id e n tifiab le e m p lo y m e n t p ra c tice o r p o licy c a u se d a sig n ifica n t d isp a ra te i m pacton a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” Id . (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h is-5-

b u rd e n , w h ic h h a d b e e n im p o s e d b y c a s e la w , see, e. g. , O rt ega v. Sa f ew ay S t ores, Inc. , 943 F. 2d 1230, 1242 ( 10th C i r . 1991) , w a s c o d ifie d b y s ta tu te in 1 9 9 1 . See 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (k); C ivil R igh ts A ct of 1 9 9 1 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 2 -16 6 , § 1 0 5 (a), 105 St at . 1071, 1074- 75. T he 1991 s t atut e depa r t ed fr om cas e l aw i n s ever al re s p e c ts , b u t n o n e a re re le v a n t h e re . D iscri m ination su it s are o ft en fi led a s p u tat ive c lass ac ti o n s. W h ethe r a s ui tcan pr ocee d as a cl as s acti on i s gover ned by Fed. R . C i v. P. 23. U ndert hat r ul e the di s tr i ctcour tm us tdet er m i ne “a tan ea r l y pr acti cabl e t i m e, ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 23( c) ( 1) ( A ) , w hethera s ui t( ora par t i cul arcl ai m w i thi n a s ui t ) s at i s fi es t he pr er equi s i t es ofnum er os i t y, com m onal i t y, t ypi cal i t y, and ade quacy of re p re s e n ta tio n , s ee i d. 23( a) , and fal l s w i thi n one oft he ca t egor i es ofacti ons m a in ta in a b le a s c la s s a c tio n s , s ee i d. 23( b) . W e r evi ew de novo w hethert he di s tr i ctcour tappl i ed the corr ectl egal s t andar d i n i t s deci s i on t o gr antordeny cl as s cer t i fi cati on; w hen the di s tr i ctcour thas appl i ed the pr opers t andar d, t he d e c is io n w ill b e re v e rs e d o n ly fo r a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See S ho ok v. El Pa so C o u n ty , 386 F. 3d 963, 967- 68 ( 10th C i r . 2004) . T he di s tr i ctcour tcan m odi fy or a m e n d its c las s-c e rtifica tio n d e ter m in a tio n a t an y tim e b e fo re fin a l ju d g m e n t in re s p o n s e to c h a n g in g c ir c u m s ta n c e s in th e c a s e . See F ed . R . C iv. P. 23 (c)(1)(C ). I n 2000, Pl ai nt i ffs , am ong ot her s , fi l ed a put ati ve nati on- w i de cl as s - acti on s ui ti n the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tfort he W es t er n D i s tr i ctofW as hi ngt on, al l eging ge nd er di scr i m i nati on i n a v ari et y o f B oeing’s com pen sat i on pract i ces.-6-

T he di s tr i ctcour t , how ever , cer t i fi ed onl y a cl as s offem al e em pl oyees w or ki ng at B oeing’s W ashi ng t on faci l i t i es. In 2 0 0 2 n o n -W a sh in g to n p lain tiffs file d su its in several st at es, i ncludi ng this sui ti n the D i stri ctof K ansas. B o e in g ’s W ich ita fa c ili ty in c lu d e s o p e ra tio n s o f th re e m ajo r b u sin e ss u n its: B o e in g C o m m e rc ial A irp lan e s, w h ich is th e lar g e st g ro u p a t th e fa c ili ty a n d is r es pons i bl e forcom m er ci al pr oduct i on; t he W i chi t a D evel opm entand M odi fi cati on C ent er , w hi ch i s r es pons i bl e fort he s i t e’ s m i l i t ar y bus i nes s ; and the S h a re d S e rv ice s G ro u p , w h ich p ro v id e s in fra stru c tu re su p p o rt. A ccor di ng t o the com plai nt, the W i chit a faci l i t y is B oeing’s l argestm anu facturi ng bu si ness. In D ecem ber 200 1 B oeing ha d ap proxim at el y 1 6, 70 0 em ployees i n K ansas. T hi s appea l conce r ns Pl ai nt i ffs ’ T i t l e V I I cl ai m s al l egi ng gender dis cri m i nati on i n B oeing’s com pen sat i on and ov erti m e po l i ci es. N i ne oft he Pl ai nt i ffs ( the C arpent erPl ai nt i ffs ) s eek t o r epr es entt hem s el ves and a c l as s of sim ilarly situ a ted c u rre n t an d fo rm e r fe m a le e m p lo y e e s a t B o e in g ’s W ich ita faci l i t y. T he o ther three Plai nti ffs ( the D ean P l ai nti ffs) are m em bers oft he clas s b u t re p re se n t o n ly th e m se lv e s o n a p p e a l. T he H our l y Subcl as s ’ s over t i m e cl ai m s w er e br oughtunderboth di s par at ei m pactand di s par at e- tr eatm enttheor i es . T he cl ai m s ar e bas ed on the al l egati on t hatthe di s cr et i on gi ven t o s uper vi s or s i n as s i gni ng over t i m e r es ul t ed i n w om en recei ving con si st entl y few er overti m e assi gn m ents t han t heirm al e cou nterpart s. I n thei rdi s par at e- tr eatm entcl ai m , t hey al l ege fur thert hat B oei ng’ s fai l ur e t o act-7-

upon know l edge oft he deni al ofthos e as s i gnm ent s cons t i tut ed i nt ent i onal dis cri m i nati on againsti t s fem al e em ployees. T he Sal ar i ed Subcl as s m ade a d isp a ra te- im p a c t cla im th a t B o e in g ’s c o m p a n y -w id e p ra c tice s fo r se tti n g b o th s t ar t i ng s al ar i es and r ai s es s ys t em at i cal l y di s advant aged i t s fem al e em pl oyees and a di s par at e- tr eatm entcl ai m thatthe com pany had fai l ed t o t ake a ct i on t o corr ect t he di s cr i m i nat or y i m pacts i nce l ear ni ng ofi ti n 1995 . N otati s s ue ar e other cl ai m s br oughtby the t w o s ubcl as s es and the cl ai m s ofa put at i ve s ubcl as s of fem al e sal ari ed en gineer s. I I . CL AS S CE RT I F I CA T I ON T her e have been s ever al cl as s - cert i fi cati on pr ocee di ngs befor e the di s tr i ct cour ti n thi s cas e. T he cour t ’ s i ni t i al cert i fi cati on deci s i on, on A pr i l 25, 2003, gr ant ed ce r t i fi cati on underR ul e 23( b) ( 2) t o both the H our l y and Sal ar i ed S u b c las se s o n th e ir d isp a ra te- im p a c t cla im s. C e rtifica tio n w a s d e n ied o n a ll di s par at e- tr eatm entcl ai m s . O n Febr uar y 24, 2004, fol l ow i ng m er i t s di s cover y, t he cour tgr ant ed B oei ng’ s m ot i on t o dece r t i fy the di s par at e- i m pactcl ai m ofthe S a lar ied S u b c las s, le a v in g th e o v e rtim e d isp a ra te- im p a c t cla im o f th e H o u rly Subcl as s as the onl y cl ai m cert i fi ed forcl as s - acti on tr eatm entunderR ul e 23. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a Renew ed M ot i on forC l as s C er t i fi cati on ( Fi r s tR enew ed M o ti o n ) on A p ri l 2, 20 0 4 , see k ing rec erti fi ca ti o n o f th e S alaried S u b class’s di s par at e- i m pactcl ai m s . T he courtpr om pt l y deni ed the m ot i on. Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a Second R enew ed M ot i on forC l as s C er t i fi cati on ( Second R enew ed M ot i on) on-8-

A u g u st 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , se e k in g c e rtifica tio n o f th e d isp a ra te- tre a tm e n t cla im s o f b o th t he H our l y and Sal ar i ed Subcl as s es and aga i n as ki ng forr ece r t i fi cati on ofthe Sal ar i ed Subcl as s ’ s di s par at e- i m pact cl ai m . T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed the m ot i on o n S e p te m b e r 8 , 2 0 0 4 . Pl ai nt i ffs then fi l ed w i th t hi s cour tan appl i cati on t o appea l under R u l e 2 3 ( f) th e d e n i a l o fth e i rS e c o n d R e n e we d Mo t i o n a s i tr e l a t e d t o t h e c l a i ms ofthe Sal ar i ed Subcl as s . A l though Pl ai nt i ffs s oughtcert i fi cati on oft he di s par at etr eatm entcl ai m ofthe H our l y Subcl as s i n thei rSecond R enew ed M ot i on, t hey abandone d t hati s s ue on appe al . D es pi t e as s er t i ng i n the appl i cati on thatt he r el i ef soug ht w as “l eave to app eal the d i stri ctcou rt ’s decis i on den ying P l ai nti ffs’ Second R enew ed M ot i on forC l as s C er t i fi cati on, ” Pet . forPer m i s s i on t o A ppeal at 1 1 , the a p p lica tio n re fe rs o n ly to th e c laim s o f th e S a lar ied S u b c las s a n d its ar gum ent s r el at e onl y t o t he ce r t i fi cati on det er m i nat i ons m ade w i th r es pectt o that subclas s. T h e re fo re , w e w ill a d d re s s o n ly th e c la im s o f t h e S a la ri e d S u b c la s s . B o eing arg u es th at P lai n ti ffs’ app li ca ti o n w as u n ti m ely u n d er R u le 23 (f) , and thatw e ther efor e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i deri t . W e pr ovi s i onal l y gr ant ed th e a p p lica tio n p e n d in g b rie fin g a n d a rg u m e n t o n o u r ju risd ictio n a n d th e m e rits o f th e a p p e a l. U p o n fu rth e r c o n sid e ra tio n w e d ism iss th e a p p lica tio n a s u n tim e ly a n d d o n o t re a c h th e m e rits o f th e a p p e a l. A . F ed . R . C iv. P . 2 3 (f)-9-

R u le 2 3 w a s a m e n d e d in 1 9 9 8 to a d d su b se c tio n (f), w h ich p e rm its i nter l ocu t ory app eal s of di stri ctcou rtorders grant i ng or deny i ng cl ass cert i fi cat i on . Itst at es: A cour tofappea l s m ay i n i t s di s cr et i on per m i tan appe al fr om an or derofa di s tr i ctcour tgr ant i ng ordenyi ng cl as s acti on cer t i fi cati on u n d er this rule if app li ca ti o n is m ad e to it w ith in ten d ay s after en tr y ofthe or der . A n appea l does nots t ay pr ocee di ngs i n the di s tr i ct cou rtun l ess the d i stri ctj ud ge o r the co urtof appe al s so orders . F e d . R . C iv . P . 2 3 (f). In te rl o c u to ry a p p e a ls h a v e lo n g b e e n d is fa v o re d in th e la w , a n d p ro p e rl y s o . T h e y d is ru p t a n d d e la y th e p ro c e e d in g s b e lo w . See 19 J am es W m . M oor e, M oor e’ s Feder al Pr acti ce § 201. 10[ 1] ( 3d ed. 2006) ( “The pur pos es oft he fi nal j udgm entr ul e ar e t o avoi d pi ece m eal l i t i gat i on, t o pr om ot e j udi ci al effi ci ency, a n d to d e fe r to th e d e c isio n s o f th e trial c o u rt. U n fe ttere d in ter lo c u to ry a p p e a ls w o u ld d isru p t b o th th e trial a n d a p p e llate p ro c e ss e s.” ); 1 5 A C h a rle s A lan W rig h t, A r t hurR . M i l l er& E dw ar d H . C ooper , Feder al Pr acti ce a nd Pr ocedur e § 3907, at 269 ( 2d ed. 1991) ( “W hen cour t s att em ptt o expl ai n the pol i ci es t hatunder l i e the fi nal j udgm entr ul e, . . . [ they] s peak of‘ effi ci ency, ’ pr ot ecti ng the r ol e oft he trial ju d g e , an d th e n e e d to a v o id su c h e v ils a s in ter fe re n c e w ith th e trial c o u rt, deci di ng unnece s s ar y i s s ues , and del i ber at e del ay orhar as s m ent . ”) . B ut s om et i m es count er vai l i ng cons i der at i ons pr edom i nat e. T he cons i der at i on thatl ed t o adopt i on ofs ubs ecti on ( f) i s thata cl as s - cert i fi cati on det er m i nat i on can for ce a r es ol ut i on ofthe ca s e thati s i ndepende ntoft he m er i t s . W hen cl as s - acti on s t atus-10-

i s deni ed, the pl ai nt i ffs m ay nee d t o abandon the ca s e, ors et t l e fora pi t t ance , beca us e the cos tofcont i nui ng w i l l farout w ei gh any pot ent i al r ecove r y i n the i ndi vi dual acti ons r em ai ni ng. A nd w hen cl as s - acti on s t atus i s gr ant ed, the defendantm ay be faci ng s uch enor m ous pot enti al l i abi l i t y thata s i gni fi cant se ttl e m e n t b e c o m e s th e o n ly p ru d e n t co u rse . A s th e A d v iso ry C o m m itt e e n o te p u ts it: [S ]e v e ra l co n c e rn s ju stify e x p a n sio n o f p re se n t o p p o rtu n iti e s to ap p ea l. A n o rde r de n y ing ce rt ificati o n m ay co n fron t th e p lai n ti ff w i t h a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the onl y s ur e path t o appel l at e r evi ew i s by p ro c e e d in g to fin a l ju d g m e n t o n th e m e rits o f a n in d iv id u a l cla im t h a t , s t a n d i n g a l o n e , i s fa rs ma l l e rth a n th e c o s t s o fl i t i g a t i o n . An or dergr ant i ng cer t i fi cati on, on the otherhand, m ay for ce adefendant t o s et t l e r athert han i ncurthe cos t s ofdefendi ng a cl as s acti on and r un the r i s k ofpot ent i al l y r ui nous l i abi l i t y. T hes e conc er ns can be m et at l o w co st by estab li sh ing in the co u rto f ap p ea ls a d iscreti o n ary pow ert o gr anti nt er l ocut or y r evi ew i n cas es thats how appea l - w or thy cert i fi cat i on i ssues. F ed . R . C iv. P. 23 ad v isory co m m ittee’s n o te, 1 9 9 8 A m en d m en ts, S u b d ivisi o n (f) . B u t th is o p p o rtu n ityfo r a n in ter lo c u to rya p p e a l is tig h tlyc o n fin e d . F irst,

“ [ t]h e c o u rt o f

a p p e a ls is g iv e n u n fe ttere d d isc re tio n w h e th e r to p e rm it th e a p p e a l, aki n t o the di s cr et i on exer ci s ed bythe Supr eme C our ti n act i ng on a pet i t i on for cert i or ar i . ” Id . A nd s econd, ther e i s a s hor tt i m e l i m i t

— 10 day s — w i thi n w hi ch th e a g g ri e v e d p a rt yc a n a s k th e c o u rto f a p p e a ls to e x e rc is e its d is c re tio n . See i d. ( “The 10- dayper i od fors eeki ng perm i s s i on t o appea l i s des i gned t o r educe the risk th a t atte m p ted a p p e a ls w ill d isru p t co n tin u in g p ro c e e d in g s.” ). B e c a u se th isW e ar e among se ver al ci r cui t s thathave tr eat ed the t i m el i nes s r equi r ement 1 a s ju ri s d ic tio n a l. See, e. g. , D el ta A i r l i nes v. B ut l er , 3 8 3 F .3 d 1 1 4 3 , 1 1 4 4 (1 0 th C i r . 2004) ( p e rc u r i a m) ( “B eca us e the peti t i on w as notfi l ed w i thi n the m andat ed tim e p e rio d , w e d ism iss e d fo r la c k o f ju risd ictio n .”); M cNam ara v. F el derhof , 410 F .3 d 2 7 7 , 2 8 0 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ U n les s s o m e e x c e p tio n a p p lies , w e lac k a p p e llate j ur i s di ct i on t o ent er t ai n t he [ unt i m el y] pet i t i on. ”) . T he Supr eme C our t ’ s r ece nt deci s i on i n E ber har tv. Uni t ed Stat es , 1 2 6 S .C t. 40 3 , 4 0 6 (2 0 0 5 ), h o w e v e r, ca sts d o u b t o n th e n o tio n th a t th e tim e lin e ss o f n o tice s o f

a p p e a l g e n e ra llyis ju ri s d ic tio n a l, see In re S p ec ial G ra n dJu ry 8 9 -2 , 4 5 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 9 , 1 1 6 6 n .2 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ), a n d c o u ld h a v e s im ila r i m p lic a tio n s fo r R u le 2 3 (f), s ee Coco v. Incorpo rat ed Vi l lag e of Belle Terre , 448 F. 3d 490, 491 ( 2d C i r . 2006) ( per c u ria m ). E v e n if

it i s n o t ju risd ictio n a l, ho w e v e r, itis u n q u e stio n a b ly “mandat ory ” i f pr oper l yr ai s ed bythe oppos i ng party , as w as the ca s e her e. B eca us e w e mustdi s m i s s the appe al i n ei therevent , w e nee d notanal y ze E berha rt ’s i m p ac t on R u le 23 (f). -11- ti m eli n ess re q u ir em en t i s m an d atory , w e m u st fir st de term ine w h ethe r P lai n ti ffs 1 sa tisfie d it. B . T i m el i n ess T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Second R enew ed M ot i on by or der ent er ed on Sept em ber8, 2004. Pl ai nt i ffs as s er tt hatt hei rappl i cati on fi l ed on Sept em ber22, 2004, w as t i m el y beca us e i tw as fi l ed w i thi n 10 days oft he di s tr i ct c o u rt ’s d is p o s itio n . See F ed . R . C iv. P. 6(a ) (co m p u tat ion o f t im e); B eckv. B oei ng C o. , 320 F. 3d 1021, 1022- 23 ( 9th C i r . 2003) ( Fed. R . C i v. P. 6( a) gover ns t he t i m el i nes s ofappl i cati ons underR ul e 23( f) ) . T he val i di t y oft hatas s er t i on depends on w hetherthe di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al w as “an or der. . . gr ant i ng or d en y ing class a cti o n ce rt ificati o n . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 23 (f) . B oei ng cont ends t hat t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s or derw as s i m pl y a r efus al t o r econs i deri t s pr i orr ul i ngs-12-

denyi ng cer t i fi cati on t o the Sal ar i ed Subcl as s and n o t it se lf a n o rd e r a p p e a lab le underR ul e 23( f) . W e agr ee w i th B oei ng. In a sense, an o rderden ying a m oti on t o recon si der a decis i on on cl ass cert i fi cati on i s an “or der. . . gr ant i ng ordenyi ng cl as s acti on cer t i fi cati on. ” B ut t hatcannotbe the s ens e i n w hi ch the t er m i s us ed i n R ul e 23( f) , beca us e that cons tr uct i on ofthe t er m w oul d under m i ne the 10- day t i m e l i m i tforfi l i ng an a p p lica tio n fo r re v iew . O n e w h o fa iled to file a n a p p lica tio n in tim e c o u ld sim p ly file a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r; a n d w h e n th a t is d e n ied , the 1 0 -d a y p e rio d w o u ld re s ta rt . See G ary v. Sheahan , 188 F. 3d 891, 893 ( 7th C i r . 1999) ( “A cce pt i ng an appea l fr om s uch a de ci s i on [ l eavi ng the cl as s defi ni t i on i n pl ace ] w oul d abandon t he t i m e l i m i tforal l pr acti cal purpos es . T hats t ep w oul d be both unauthor i zed a n d im p ru d e n t.”); cf

. M cNam ara , 410 F. 3d at281 ( “[ T ] o hol d that

— no m at t er how s t yl ed— a m ot i on underR ul e 23( c) [ t o al t eroram end a c l as s - cert i fi cati on decis i on ] i s al w ays d istin c t fro m a m o tio n to re c o n sid e r w o u ld a llo w a p a rty to s u b v e rtth e te n -d a y tim e lim it p re s c ri b e d in R u le 2 3 (f).” ). O ne m i ghtar gue, as Pl ai nt i ffs do, t hatt hi s r eas oni ng does notappl y w hen th e m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n ra ise s n e w a rg u m e n ts, b a se d o n n e w d e v e lo p m e n ts i n the ca s e. B utthe nee d t o avoi d caus i ng del ay and di s r upt i on t o the di s tr i ct cour tpr ocee di ngs cauti ons agai ns tan appe l l at e cour t ’ s engagi ng i n det ai l ed i ns pecti on and ana l ys i s ofthe r ecor d t o det er m i ne how new an ar gum enti s and w hetherthe under l yi ng evi dence w as r eas onabl y avai l abl e w hen ce r t i fi cati on w as-13-

or i gi nal l y l i t i gat ed. M or eover , t her e ca n be l i t t l e doubtthatr evi ew ofan or der denyi ng a m ot i on forr econs i der at i on w oul d have t o be l i m i t ed t o the new el em ent s i n the m ot i on— the or i gi nal or derr egar di ng cert i fi cati on m us tbe pr es um ed corr ect , ort her e w oul d be a c l earend run ar ound the 10- day l i m i t . Y et gi ven the m ul t i fact oranal ys i s t hatcour t s m us tappl y i n deci di ng the pr opr i et y of cl as s cert i fi cati on, s uch a l i m i t ed r evi ew w oul d oft en r equi r e cont or t ed thi nki ng that ex ce ed s the ca p ac ities o f ev en ap p ell ate c o u rt s. H o w ca n an ap p ell ate c o u rt s ay thatone par t i cul arnew fact orw oul d r equi r e a di ffer entr es ul tr egar dl es s of how t he di s tr i ctcour tw ei ghed the fact or s pr es ent ed or i gi nal l y? I n s t at i ng thatthe new fact orr equi r ed a di ffer entr es ul t , the appe l l at e courtm us tengage i n w ei ghi ng t he fact or s w ei ghed by the di s tr i ctcour ti n i t s or i gi nal r ul i ng butcannotknow pr eci s el y how m uch w ei ghtthe di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed t o eac h. I n par t i cul ar , w hat i ft he di s tr i ctcour tcl ear l y err ed i n gi vi ng di s pos i t i ve w ei ghtt o one fact or ? H ow i s t he appe l l at e courtt o i gnor e s uch err or( i n keepi ng w i th the pr es um pt i on that t he or i gi nal deci s i on w as corr ect ) even w hen i taddr es s es a m ot i on for r econs i der at i on t hatr ai s es onl y a r atheri ncons equenti al new fact or ? To be sur e, w e do r evi ew m ot i ons t o r econs i deri n cert ai n ci r cum s t ance s , s uch as deni al s of m ot i ons underFed. R . C i v. P. 60( b) . B utthe pr edi cat e forthatr evi ew — for e x a m p le, fra u d o r n e w ly d isc o v e re d e v id e n c e — is la rg e ly c o llate ra l to th e m e rits oft he dec i s i on. W e ar e noti ncl i ned t o adopta cons tr uct i on ofR ul e 23( f) that w o u ld re g u lar ly re q u ire m e n tal g y m n a stic s ju st fo r th e p u rp o se o f g iv in g lit ig a n ts-14-

a se co n d b it e a t th e interloc u tory -ap p ell ate-rev iew ap p le. W e n o te th at th e v ery abs ence ofa pr om ptappea l by the part y aggr i eved by the dec i s i on on cert i fi cati on su g g e sts th a t th e c o n c e rn s ju stify in g R u le 2 3 (f) a re , at th e lea st, les s s ig n ifica n t in th e p a rticu lar c a se . If th e d e c isio n w h e th e r o r n o t to c e rtify th e c las s w a s tru ly out com e det er m i nat i ve, one w oul d notexpec tthe l os i ng par t y t o cont i nue the l i t i gat i on for m onths befor e l aunchi ng a new chal l enge t o the r ul i ng. A ny val ue i n per m i t t i ng a bel at ed i nt er l ocut or y appea l i s overr i dden by the des i r abi l i t y ofthe d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s p ro c e e d in g e x p e d itio u s ly . W e r ecogni ze thatR ul e 23( c) ( 1) ( C ) per m i t s t he di s tr i ctcour tt o al t eror am end a c er t i fi cati on deci s i on. A nd par t i es m ay s ugges ts uch cha nges as t he factual r ecor d and l egal theor i es devel op. A l l w e ar e s ayi ng i s t hatt her e ca n be no R ul e 23( f) appea l fr om the deni al ofs uch a s ugges t i on. A n or dert hatl eave s cl as s - acti on s t atus unchange d fr om w hatw as det er m i ned by a pr i oror deri s notan or der“gr ant i ng ordenyi ng cl as s acti on cer t i fi cati on. ” O fcour s e, w hen the di s tr i ctcour tacc ept s a s ugges t i on and the ce r t i fi cati on deci s i on i s change d, t he new or der , t o t he ext enti tm odi fi es t he pr i oror der , i s i ndeed s uch an or derand an in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l u n d e r R u le 2 3 (f) i s p e rm itte d . See G ary , 188 F. 3d at893 (“ [I]f in re sp o n se to a b e late d m o tio n fo r re c o n sid e ra tio n th e ju d g e m a ter ially a lters th e d e c isio n , the n th e p a rty a g g rie v e d b y th e a ltera tio n m a y a p p e a l w ith in the n o rm al t im e.”).-15-

In a d d iti o n , w e n o te th e sp e c ial c a se o f m o tio n s to re c o n sid e r file d w ith in 10 days oft he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s cert i fi cati on deci s i on. T he Supr em e C our thas l ong r ecogni zed thatm ot i ons t o r econs i dert ol l the t i m e forappea l w hen they ar e fi l ed w ith in th e tim e fo r filin g a n o tic e o f a p p e a l. See Uni t ed Stat es v. D i et er , 42 9 U. S. 6, 8 & n. 3 ( 1976) ( “[ T ] he cons i s t entpr acti ce i n ci vi l and cr i m i nal cas es al i ke has been t o tr eatt i m el y pet i t i ons forr ehea r i ng as r ender i ng the or i gi nal j udgm ent n o n fin a l fo r p u rp o se s o f a p p e a l fo r a s lo n g a s th e p e tit io n is p e n d in g .”). T h is r ecogni t i on s t em s fr om t he cl earadvant age ofpr ovi di ng the di s tr i ctcour tan oppor t uni t y t o corr ecti t s ow n err or , as l ong as doi ng s o does notunder m i ne the tim e lim it fo r p u rsu in g a n a p p e a l. W e a ss u m e , w ith o u t h a v in g to d e c id e in th is c a s e , th a t s u c h m o tio n s to re c o n s id e r w o u ld a ls o to ll th e tim e lim it in R u le 2 3 (f). See, e. g. , M cNam ara , 4 1 0 F .3 d a t 2 8 1 (re c o g n izin g th e to lli n g e ffe c t o f a tim e ly m o ti o n to rec o n side r i n the R u le 23 (f) co n text). T h e d istri ct co u rtfi rstd en ied c erti fi ca ti o n o f th e S alaried S u b class’s di s par at e- tr eatm ent cl ai m on A pr i l 25, 2003. Pl ai nt i ffs di d notexer ci s e thei rr i ght to fi le a R u le 23 (f) p eti ti o n w ith in 1 0 d ay s o f th at ord er. T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s deter m i nati on as t o thatcl ai m has no tchan ged i n all t he sub sequen tproceed i ng s, s o ther e has notbeen a ny ot heror der“gr ant i ng ordenyi ng cl as s acti on c e rt ific a tio n ” th a t w o u ld tr ig g e r a n o th e r p e ri o d fo r s e e k in g in te rl o c u to ry a p p e a l. A s forcl as s cert i fi cati on ofthe Sal ar i ed Subcl as s ’ s di s par at e- i m pactcl ai m , t he di s tr i ctcour ti ni t i al l y cer t i fi ed the cl as s i n i t s A pr i l 25, 2003, or der , w hi ch B oei ng-16-

d id n o t ap p e a l. O n F e b ru a ry 2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , h o w e v e r, itg ra n ted B o e in g ’s m o tio n to d e c e rt ify . A t th a t ju n c tu re P lain tiffs c o u ld h a v e so u g h t o u r re v iew u n d e r R u le 2 3 (f) , b u t th ey d id n o t do so . D esp it e tw o att em p ts t o h av e the d istri ct co u rt r ece r t i fy t hatcl ai m , i n bot h Pl ai nt i ffs ’ Fi r s tR enew ed M ot i on and thei rSecond R enew ed M ot i on, the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r ul i ng on cert i fi cati on has notchange d agai n. T her efor e, nei therofthe or der s denyi ng thos e m ot i ons w as an or der gr ant i ng ordenyi ng cer t i fi cati on and nei thertr i gger ed a ne w per i od forfi l i ng a R ul e 23( f) appl i cati on. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ R ul e 23( f) appl i cati on on Sept em ber22, 2004, m us tbe di s m i s s ed as an unt i m el y at t em ptt o have us r evi ew t he court ’ s or der s of A pr i l 25, 2003, and Febr uar y 24, 2004. A ny appea l oft hos e ce r t i fi cati on d e c is io n s m u s t a w a it fin a l ju d g m e n t. See G ary , 188 F. 3d at892. I I I . S UM M ARY J UDGM EN T O n Febr uar y 24, 2004, the di s tr i ctcour tgr ant ed B oei ng’ s m ot i on for s u mma r y j u d g me n to n th e d i s p a r a t e - i mp a c tc l a i m o ft h e Ho u r l y S u b c l a s s . On A u g u s t 1 1 , 2 0 0 4 , th e c o u rtc e rt ifie d th a t r u lin g a s a fi n a l ju d g m e n t, s ee F e d . R. C i v. P. 54( b) , and Pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a ti m el y appea l . B oei ng fi l ed a c r os s - appea l s eeki ng dece r t i fi cati on ofthi s s ubcl as s s houl d w e r ever s e the s um m ar y-j udgm ent r u l i n g . Be c a u s e we a ffi r m t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s g r a n to fs u mma r y j u d g me n t , we n e e d n o t ad d re ss th e c ro ss -a p p e a l. A . St andard of R evi ew-17-

O urs t andar d ofr evi ew on s um m ar y j udgm enti s de novo; w e appl y the s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd to b e u s e d b y th e d is tr ic t c o u rt . G ar r i s on v. G am br o, Inc. , 428 F. 3d 933, 935 ( 10th C i r . 2005) . Sum m ar y j udgm ents houl d be gr ant ed i f“the pl eadi ngs , depos i t i ons , ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es , and adm i s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i th the affi davi t s , i fany, s how thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o any m at er i al factand thatthe m ovi ng par t y i s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a m at t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) . N ei ther“m er e as s er t i ons and conj ectur e, ” Yorkv. A T& T C o. , 95 F. 3d 948, 955 ( 10th C i r . 1996) , nor“the exi s t ence ofa s ci nt i l l a of evi dence i n s uppor tofthe nonm ovant ’ s pos i t i on, ” L aw m ast er v. Ward , 125 F. 3d 1 3 4 1 , 1 3 4 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ), is su ffic ien t to sh o w a g e n u in e iss u e o f m a ter ial fa c t; “an i s s ue ofm at er i al facti s genui ne onl y i ft he nonm ovantpr es ent s fact s s uch th a t a re a s o n a b le ju ry c o u ld fi n d in fa v o r o f t h e n o n m o v a n t,” i d. B . P la in tiffs ’ C la im P lain tiffs c o m p lain th a t w o m e n h a v e b e e n th e v ictim s o f d isc rim in a tio n in t he as s i gnm entofover t i m e atB oei ng’ s W i chi t a faci l i t y, bei ng offer ed and r ece i vi ng l es s than thei rpr opor t i onat e s har e. T hey have r ai s ed both di s par at etr ea tm en t and d ispa rate-i m p ac t cl aim s relati n g to o v erti m e. T h e su m m ary ju d g m e n t d is p o s e d o f o n ly th e ird is p a ra te -i m p a c t c la im . “A n unl aw ful em pl oym entpr acti ce ba s ed on di s par at e i m pacti s es t abl i s hed

. . . on l y if. . . a com plai ning part y d em on strat es that a r espon den tuses a p a rt ic u la r e m p lo y m e n t p ra c tic e th a t c a u s e s a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n th e b a s is o f . . .-18-

s ex . . . . ” 42 U . S. C . § 2000e- 2( k) ( 1) ( A ) ( i ) . T he fi r s ts t ep i n r ai s i ng a di s par at ei m pactcl ai m i s t o i dent i fy the s peci fi c em pl oym entpr acti ce a l l egedl y caus i ng the d is c ri m in a to ry im p a c t. S e e Wa rds C o v e P a c k in g C o . v. A to n io , 490 U . S. 642, 657 ( 1989) ( “[ A ] pl ai nt i ffm us tdem ons tr at e thati ti s the appl i cati on ofa s peci fi c or par t i cul arem pl oym entpr acti ce thathas cr eat ed the di s par at e i m pactunder att ac k . ”); M al donado v. C i ty of A l t us , 433 F. 3d 1294, 1304 ( 10th C i r . 2006) . T he sp e c ific p ra c tice id e n tified b y P lain tiffs is th a t “B o e in g su p p lies n o g u id a n c e to m anage r s on how t o choos e am ong el i gi bl e em pl oyees , and ther e ar e no c e n tra lize d ru les fo r h o w to c h o o se a m o n g e q u a lly e lig ib le m a le a n d fe m a le em pl oyees . ” R . D oc. 340 at23 ( Pl ai nt i ffs ’ M em . i n O pp’ n t o B oei ng’ s M ot . for S u m m . J.); s ee al s o A pl t . B r . at26. ( I n the s um m ar y-j udgm entpr ocee di ngs bel ow , and on appe al , Pl ai nt i ffs have a l s o cl ai m ed di s cr i m i nat or y i m pactfr om B oei ng’ s fai l ur e t o m oni t orm anage r s orhol d them acc ount abl e forthe gende r i m pact s of thei r over t i m e deci s i ons . T hatal l egati on w as notaddr es s ed by the di s tr i ctcour t . Pl ai nt i ffs ’ appel l at e br i efs , how ever , cont ai n no fur therel abor at i on o f t h is c la im , s o w e w ill n o t s p e c ific a lly a d d re s s it. See G r os s v. B urggraf C ons t r . C o. , 5 3 F .3 d 1 5 3 1 , 1 5 4 6 -4 7 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ [I]t is in su ffic ien t m e re ly t o s t at e i n one' s br i efthatone i s appea l i ng an adve r s e rul i ng bel ow w i thout advanc i ng r eas oned ar gum entas t o the gr ounds forappea l . ” ( i nt er nal br acke t s and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). I n any eve nt , ourdi s cus s i on ofthei rcl ai m t hat-19-

su p e rv iso rs w e re g iv e n in a d e q u a te g u id a n c e in o v e rtim e a ss ig n m e n ts w o u ld lik e ly a ls o b e d is p o s itiv e o f t h is c la im .)

“ Un d e rth e d i s p a r a t e i mp a c tt h e o r y , a p l a i n t i ffmu s tfi r s tma k e o u ta p r i ma faci e ca s e ofdi s cr i m i nat i on by s how i ng thata s peci fi c i dent i fi abl e em pl oym ent pr acti ce orpol i cy ca us ed a s i gni fi cantdi s par at e i m pacton a pr ot ect ed gr oup. ” M ur phy v. D erw i ns ki , 990 F. 2d 540, 544 ( 10th C i r . 1993) ( i nt er nal quot at i on m a rk s o m itt e d ). In o th e r w o rd s, a p lain tiff m u st “ sh o w th a t th e re is a leg a lly s i gni fi cantdi s par i t y bet w een ( a) t he [ gender ] com pos i t i on, caus ed by the chal l enged e m pl oym entpr acti ce, oft he pool oft hos e enj oyi ng a j ob orj ob b e n e fi t; a n d (b ) t h e [g e n d e r] c o m p o s itio n o f t h e q u a lifie d a p p lic a n t p o o l . . . [ , i . e. , ] the pool fr om w hi ch pot ent i al qual i fi ed appl i cant s m i ghtcom e. ” C r um v. A l abam a ( In r e Empl oym entD i s cr i m i nat i on Li t i g. A gai ns tA l a. , 198 F. 3d 1305, 1312 & n. 11 ( 11th C i r . 1999) . T he courtcom par es t he gende rcom pos i t i on of t hos e w ho ar e s ubj ectt o t he cha l l enged e m pl oym entpr acti ce w i th the gende r co m p o sit ion o f th o se e njoy ing the b en efitfor w h ich th e p rac ti ce selec ts. In as s es s i ng w hethera pl ai nt i ffhas es t abl i s hed a pr i m a faci e ca s e, i ti s , ofcour s e, i r r el evantw hathappens t o t hos e w ho do notqual i fy forcons i der at i on. See Wards C ove , 490 U . S. at650- 51 ( “The pr opercom par i s on i s bet w een the r aci al com pos i t i on ofthe at - i s s ue j obs and the r aci al com pos i t i on oft he qual i f i ed popul at i on i n t he r el evantl aborm arket . ” ( em phas i s added; i nt er nal quot at i on m ark s, b rac k ets, an d ell ipsis om itted)) .-20-

P lain tiffs’ c laim re sts o n th e a ss e rtio n th a t su p e rv iso rs a re e x e rc isin g th e ir d isc re tio n (in ten tio n a lly o r su b c o n sc io u sly ) to a w a rd m a les a d isp ro p o rtio n a te s har e ofavai l abl e overt i m e as s i gnm ent s . T o es t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e ca s e, i ti s not enough forPl ai nt i ffs t o s how s i m pl y thatm or e overt i m e as s i gnm ent s go t o m en th a n to w o m e n , o r e v e n th a t m e n g e t a h ig h e r p e rc e n tag e o f th o se a ss ig n m e n ts t han thei rper cent age i n the w or k for ce. T hey m us tcom par e qual i f i edm e n to qual i f i edw o m en . T h at i s, they m u st sho w that am o n g m en an d w o m en w h o are e l i g i b l e fo ro v e r t i me a s s i g n me n t s , a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e s h a r e o fo v e r t i me as s i gnm ent s go t o m en. T he qual i fi cati ons forover t i m e as s i gnm entar e es t abl i s hed i n the col l ecti ve bar gai ni ng agr eem ent( C B A ) bet w een Boei ng and the I nt er nat i onal A s s oci at i on of M achini st s and A erospace W orkers A F L -C IO . T he C B A provides: 6. 10( b) O vert i m e Schedul i ng P roce dures for E xt ended W orkday or W or kw e e k. ( 1 ) T h e n o r ma l p r a c t i c e fo rt h e a d v a n c e s c h e d u l i n g o fo v e r t i me w i t hi n t he s hop and s hi ftw i l l be t o: ( a) Fi r s t , as k t he em pl oyee r egul ar l y as s i gned t o ei thert he m a c h in e , job , cre w , o r p o sitio n p ro v id in g th e e m p lo y e e is in a tte n d a n c e w h e n th e o v e rt im e is b e in g a s s ig n e d . . . . ( b) T hen, as k otherqual i fi ed em pl oyees i n the s am e j ob cl as s i fi cati on w ho ar e i n att endanc e w hen the overt i m e i s bei ng as s i gned. ( c) I fs uffi ci entvol unt eer s ar e notobt ai ned, t he C om pany m ay desi gn at e any em ployee t o sat i sfy rem ai ning requir em ents . ( 2) M anage m entm ay exc l ude an e m pl oyee fr om over t i m e, even i ft he em p loy ee is i n att en d an ce w h en the o v erti m e is b eing assig n ed , if : (a ) T h e e m p lo y e e h a s b e e n a b s e n t d u ri n g th e w e e k . . . .-21- ( b) A n em pl oyee i s as ked t o w or k over t i m e ( Satur day and/ or Sunday) and i s s ubs equent l y abs entdue t o i l l nes s or ber eave m entl eave on the w or kday pr ece di ng the overt i m e day. ( c) T w o ( 2) cons ecuti ve w eeke nds have be en w or ked by the em pl oyee. ( d) O ne hundr ed for t y- four( 144) over t i m e hour s have be en w o rke d in the b u d g et qu arter. ( e) E i ght( 8) over t i m e hour s have be en w or ked on the Satur day ort he Sunday. (f) A n e m p lo y e e ’s s c h e d u le p e rfo rm a n c e o r w o rk q u a lity is c u rre n tly d o c u m e n ted a s b e in g d e fic ien t. R ep. A pl t s . Supp. A pp. V ol . 1 at10- 11. ( T hi s pr ovi s i on i s fr om the Sept em ber2, 1999, C B A . T he 1995 C B A m ay be a ppl i cabl e t o a por t i on oft he cl as s per i od, w hi ch r uns fr om A pr i l 2, 1999. Pl ai nt i ffs acknow l edge, how ever , t hatt he o v erti m e p rov isi o n s d id n o t cha n g e m aterial ly d u ri n g the c lass p eriod . ) P lai n ti ffs d o n o t d is p u te th a t th e C B A a p p lie s to th e c h a lle n g e d o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n ts . T hei rcl ai m i s thatthe di s cr et i on exer ci s ed by m anage r s i n “choos [ i ng] am ong em pl oyees w ho w or ked i n t he ar ea w her e over t i m e w as r equi r ed and w ant ed the e x tr a p a y ” h a s c re a te d a d is p a ri ty b e tw e e n s im ila rl y s itu a te d m e n a n d w o m e n . Ap l t . B r . a t2 6 . B o e i n g fo ri t s p a r td o e s n o td i s p u t e t h a ts u p e r v i s o r s h a v e s o me m eas ur e ofdi s cr et i on w i thi n t he t er m s oft he C B A . I tar gues , how ever , t hat Pl ai nt i ffs have fai l ed t o m ake a s uffi ci ents how i ng thatt hi s di s cr et i on has been e x e rc is e d in a m a n n e r a d v e rs e to w o m e n . O n a p p e a l P lain tiffs c o n ten d th a t th e ir sta tistica l ev id e n c e o f d isp a ra te im p a c t su ffic e s to p re c lu d e su m m a ry ju d g m e n t. (I n d i stri ctcou rtP l ai nti ffs al so pr es ent ed a va r i et y ofanec dot al evi dence t o s uppor tt hi s cl ai m . B utbeca us e on-22-

a p p e a l t h e y d o n o tr e l y o n t h a te v i d e n c e i n c h a l l e n g i n g s u mma r y j u d g me n t , we w ill c o n s id e r o n ly th e s ta tis tic a l e v id e n c e .) T h e y re ly o n a stu d y b y th e ir e x p e rt, D r . B er nar d Si s ki n. D r . Si s ki n per for m ed a r egr es s i on anal ys i s t hatcom par ed the o v e rtim e w o rk e d b y m a le a n d fe m a le e m p lo y e e s w h o m h e d e fin e d a s “ sim ilarly situ ated . ” R . D o c. 34 6 (D ec l. o f B ern ard P . S iskin, P h . D . in O p p ’n to B o eing ’s M ot . forSum m . J . ( her ei naft er“Si s ki n St udy”) ) at22. T he Si s ki n St udy e x a m in e d o v e rtim e a ss ig n m e n ts fro m A p ril 2 , 1 9 9 9 (th e b e g in n in g o f th e liab ili ty p e rio d fo r th is c laim ) th ro u g h Ju n e 2 0 , 2 0 0 2 , u sin g B o e in g ’s e lec tro n ic d a ily pay rol l recor ds. F o r w e e k d a y o v e rtim e th e S isk in S tu d y d e fin e d sim ilarly s i t uat ed em pl oyees as thos e w ho “[ w ] or ked thatday and a r e i n the s am e j ob, gr ade, budgetcode a nd s hi ft . ” Id. at23. S im ilarly situ a ted e m p lo y e e s w ith resp ec t t o w ee k en d o v erti m e w ere d efine d as th o se w h o “[w ]ork ed F ri d ay an d are i n the s am e j ob, gr ade, budgetcode a nd s hi ft . ” Id . F o r e a c h c o h o rt o f sim ilarly s i t uat ed em pl oyees , the Si s ki n St udy cal cul at ed thr ee m eas ur es form en and w om en: ( 1) the l i kel i hood ofw or ki ng any over t i m e; ( 2) the ave r age num berof o v e rtim e h o u rs w o rk e d ; an d (3 ) th e a v e ra g e n u m b e r o f o v e rtim e h o u rs p a id (ov erti m e is p aid a t ei ther 1 . 5 o r 2 ti m es a n o rm al ho u r). I tt hen com put ed a sh o rt fall n u m b er fo r fem ales tha t des cribe d h o w m u ch g rea ter eac h m ea su re w oul d be w er e fem al es r epr es ent ed i n pr opor t i on t o thei rper cent age re p re se n tatio n in e a c h c o h o rt. “T h a t is, if fem a les w e re 2 5 p e rc e n t o f th e c o h o rt,-23-

t hey s houl d be 25 per centofthos e w or ki ng over t i m e and r ece i ve 25 per centofthe over t i m e hour s and pay. ” Id. at22. T h e S iskin S tud y co n clud ed that “[h ]ou rl y fem ale e m p loy ee s w h o are s i m i l ar l y s i tuat ed t o m al es w i th r es pectt o j ob, gr ade, s hi ft , depar t m ent , and b u d g e t co d e a re c o n sis ten tly a n d h ig h ly sta tistica lly sig n ifica n tly les s lik e ly to w o rk o v e rtim e , to w o rk les s o v e rtim e , an d to re c e iv e les s o v e rtim e p a y . T h is patt er n i s cons i s t entacr os s t i m e. ” Id. at3. I tobs er ved that“[ c] l ear l y, s om ethi ng i n the overt i m e pr oces s cons i s t ent l y r es ul t s i n m al es obt ai ni ng m or e over t i m e and w or ki ng m or e overt i m e than fem al es . ” Id. at23. T h e re is n o d isp u te th a t “s o m e th in g ” c a u se s m e n to w o rk p ro p o rtio n a tely m or e over t i m e than w om en atB oei ng. T he di s tr i ctcour ts ai d thatt he fol l ow i ng su m m a ry w a s u n c o n tro v e rte d fo r p u rp o se s o f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t: B e tw e e n A p ril 2 , 1 9 9 9 , an d D e c e m b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 1 , d isp a rities in o v erti m e a d v erse to w o m en ran g ed b etw ee n a low o f 17 . 0 6 stan d ard dev i at i on s and a h i gh of 38.03 st and ard dev i at i on s. F or the las t per i od forw hi ch D r . Si s ki n has anal yzed da t a, endi ng J une 20, 2002, t h e d i s p a r i t i e s we r e 1 0 . 2 3 s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s fo rwe e k d a y o v e r t i me and 7. 95 s t andar d devi at i ons forw eeke nd over t i m e. R ep. A pl t s . A pp. V ol . 1 at280. B o e in g c o n c e d e s th a t th e s e d iffe re n c e s a re s ta tis tic a lly h ig h ly s ig n ific a n t. T he Supr em e C our thas r ecogni zed thata di s par i t y ofm or e than t w o ort hr ee s t andar d devi at i ons i n a l ar ge s am pl e m akes “s us pect ” the cont ent i on thatt he d iffe re n tia l o c c u rs ra n d o m ly . See Haz el w ood Sch. D i s t . v. Uni t ed Stat es , 433-24-

U .S . 2 9 9 , 3 0 8 n .1 4 (1 9 7 7 ); C as taneda v. P ar t i da , 4 3 0 U . S . 4 8 2 , 4 9 6 n . 1 7 (19 7 7 ). S ev era l ci rcu itco u rt s h av e a d o p ted a sim il ar lev el of sign ifican ce in T it le V II c a s e s . See, e. g. , Sm i th v. X erox C or p. , 1 9 6 F .3 d 3 5 8 , 3 6 6 (2 d C ir. 1 9 9 9 ); Bro wn v. P hi l ip M or r i s Inc. , 2 5 0 F .3 d 7 8 9 , 8 0 9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ); L ew i s v. B l oo m sburg M i l l s , Inc. , 7 7 3 F . 2 d 5 6 1 , 5 6 8 -69 (4th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) (five to eigh t st an d ard d e v iatio n s); A dam s v. A m er i t ech Se rvs . , Inc. , 2 3 1 F .3 d 4 1 4 , 4 2 4 (7 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). B utdes pi t e r ecogni zi ng thatthe s t at i s t i cs s how t hatm en have w or ked pr opor t i onat el y m or e overt i m e than w om en, B oei ng cl ai m s t hatt he Si s ki n St udy nonethel es s fai l s t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e ca s e. I tcont ends t hatt he Si s ki n St udy does nots how thatthe “s om ethi ng” ca us i ng m en t o w or k m or e over t i m e than w om en i s the m anage rdi s cr et i on thatPl ai nt i ffs have i dent i fi ed as t he cha l l enged em ploym ent pr act i ce. B oeing’s argum ent appears t o b e t hat the “som et hing” i s a var i abl e otherthan thos e thatthe Si s ki n St udy i ncl uded i n the s t at i s t i cal m o d e l— n a m e ly , job , g ra d e , b u d g e t co d e , an d sh ift. A ccor di ng t o B oei ng, other var i abl es affecti ng over t i m e as s i gnm ent s — s uch as t he C B A cr i t er i a and pot ent i al di ffer ence s i n t he r at es atw hi ch m en and w om en vol unt eerforover t i m e— ar e not contr ol l ed fori n t he Si s ki n St udy and coul d be r es pons i bl e fort he obs er ved dis pari t i es. T he di s tr i ctcour tagr eed w i th B oei ng thata s t at i s t i cal s tudy coul d not es t abl i s h a cl ai m w i thoutcons i der i ng s uch var i abl es and gr ant ed B oei ng’ s m ot i on fo r su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th a t b a sis . B e fo re a d d re ss in g B o e in g ’s a rg u m e n ts, w ith-25-

w hi ch w e agr ee i n part , w e r evi ew the l egal fr am ew or k forthe us e ofs t at i s t i cal e v id e n c e in T itle V II c a s e s . C . St at i s t i cal E vi dence - G eneral P ri nci pl es St at i s t i cal evi dence i s an ac cept abl e, and com m on, m eans ofpr ovi ng d is p a ra te im p a c t. See, e. g. , Sandovalv. C i ty of B oul der , 388 F. 3d 1312, 1326 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); B u llin g to n , 186 F. 3d at1312 ( “A s i s t ypi cal i n di s par at e i m pact ca ses, [plainti ff] reli es o n stat istical ev iden ce to es tablish h er p rim a fa c ie ca se.”); Mo u n ta i n S i d e Mo b i l e E s ta t e s P ’ s h ip v . S e c ’ y o f HUD , 5 6 F .3 d 1 2 4 3 , 1 2 5 1 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) (“ In T itl e V II e m p lo y m e n t d isc rim in a tio n c a se s, p lain tiffs m a y re ly s ol el y on a s t at i s t i cal s how i ng ofdi s par at e effectt o es t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e ca s e of d is p a ra te im p a c t.” ). T h e s ta tis tic s m u s t, h o w e v e r, r e la te to th e p ro p e r p o p u la tio n . Forexam pl e, w hen the cl ai m i s di s par at e i m pacti n hi r i ng, t he s t at i s t i cs s houl d be b a s e d o n d a ta w ith re s p e c t to p e rs o n s q u a lifie d fo r t h e jo b . See Wards C ove , 490 U . S. at650- 51 ( “I ti s s uch a c om par i s on— bet w een the r aci al com pos i t i on ofthe qual i fi ed per s ons i n t he l aborm arketand the per s ons hol di ng at - i s s ue j obs

— that gener al l y for m s the pr operbas i s fort he i ni t i al i nqui r y i n a di s par at e- i m pact c a se .”); see al so B ul l i ngt on , 186 F. 3d at1314 ( “[ Pl ai nt i ff ’ s ] appl i cantpool w as a p p ro p ria tely lim ited to p e rso n s w h o so u g h t o u t an d w e re a t lea st m in im a lly qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i on . . . . ”) . T he s am e r equi r em entappl i es t o otherj ob b e n e fi ts . See Crum , 1 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 1 2 (re latin g to a lleg e d d isc rim in a tio n in “l ayoffs , r eca l l s fr om l ayoffs , t er m i nat i ons , di s ci pl i ne, hi r i ng, r ehi r i ng,-26-

e v a lu a tio n s, c o m p e n sa tio n , tran sfe rs, jo b d u ty a ss ig n m e n ts, re c ru itm e n t, s cr eeni ng, s el ecti on pr ocedur es , deni al ofpr om ot i ons , dem ot i ons , r ol l backs , s i ck l eave , s ubj ecti ve dec i s i on- m aki ng pr acti ces , and othert er m s and condi t i ons of e m p lo y m e n t” ( in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )). T h e e ss e n tial re q u ire m e n t is t hatt he dat a conc er n thos e per s ons s ubj ectt o the cha l l enged e m pl oym ent pr acti ce. A ft ers peci fyi ng t he em pl oym entpr acti ce a l l egedl y r es pons i bl e for ex clud ing m em b ers o f th eir pro tected class fro m a b en efit , p lai n ti ffs m us ti dent i fy the corr ectpopul at i on foranal ys i s . I n the t ypi cal di s par at e i m pactcas e the pr operpopul at i on foranal ys i s i s the a p p lica n t p o o l o r th e e lig ib le la b o r p o o l. T h e c o m p o sitio n o f th is p o p u l a t i o n i s c o m p a r e d t o th e c o m p o s i t i o n o fth e e m p l o y e r 's w or kfor ce i n a r el evantm anner , dependi ng on the natur e ofthe benefi ts ought . S m ith , 1 9 6 F .3 d a t 3 6 8 . W h e n th e s e le c tio n p ro c e s s is o n ly p a rt ia lly s u bje c tiv e , a di s par at e- i m pactpl ai nt i ffs houl d contr ol forthe cons tr ai nt s pl ace d upon t he d e c is io n m a k e r’ s d is c re tio n . See Anders on v. Wes t i nghous e Savannah Ri verC o. , 4 0 6 F .3 d 2 4 8 , 2 6 6 -6 7 (4 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ); cf . Wats on v. F ortWorth B an k & Trust , 487 U . S. 977, 994 ( 1988) ( O ’ C onnor , J . , pl ur al i t y opi ni on) ( “Espec i al l y i n cas es w h e re a n e m p lo y e r c o m b in e s s u bjec tiv e c riter ia w ith th e u se o f m o re rig id s t andar di zed rul es ort es t s , the pl ai nt i ffi s i n ourvi ew r es pons i bl e fori s ol at i ng a n d id e n tify in g th e sp e c ific e m p lo y m e n t p ra c tice s th a t ar e a lleg e d ly re sp o n sib le for a n y o b serv ed stat ist ical disp arit ies. ”).-27-

T o be s ur e, t he popul at i on s el ect ed fors t at i s t i cal anal ys i s need not p e rfe c tly m a tch th e p o o l o f q u a lified p e rso n s. S u c h p e rfe c tio n m a y b e im p o ss ib le t o obt ai n. W hen r el i abl e dat a r egar di ng thatpool ar e unava i l abl e, a di ffer ent popul at i on m ay be us ed i fi tadequa t el y r efl ect s the popul at i on ofqual i fi ed p e rs o n s . See R am ona L. Paet zol d & St even L. W i l l bor n, T he St at i s t i cs of D i s cr i m i nat i on § 5. 04 ( 2002) ( “I n s om e i ns t ance s , w her e appl i cantdat a ar e not avai l abl e, r el i abl e, orar e bel i eved t o be bi as ed, and w her e s t at i s t i cal i nfor m at i on r egar di ng the l aborm arketi s di ffi cul tt o as cert ai n, the gene r al popul at i on m i ght a d e q u a tely re fle c t th e p o p u latio n o f q u a lified jo b a p p lica n ts.” ); s ee al s o M al ave v . P ot t er , 320 F. 3d 321, 326- 27 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( “[ I ] tw as err or[ t o r ej ect ] outofhand [ Pl ai nt i ff ’ s ] s t at i s t i cal anal ys i s s i m pl y beca us e i tfai l ed t o confor m t o the pr ef er r ed m ethodol ogy des cr i bed i n Wards C ove , g iven the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s expr es s endor s em enti n thatdeci s i on ofal t er nat i ve m ethodol ogi es i fthe pr eferr ed sta tistics a re ‘d iffic u lt’ o r ‘im p o ss ib le’ to o b tain .”); cf . Troutv. Lehm an , 702 F. 2d 1 0 9 4 , 1 1 0 2 (D .C . C ir. 1 9 8 3 ) (in d isp a ra te- tre a tm e n t ca se b ro u g h t b e fo re th e C iv il R ig h ts A c t o f 1 9 9 1 , “p lain tiffs c a n n o t leg iti m a tely b e fa u lted fo r g a p s in th e ir s t at i s t i cal anal ys i s w hen the i nfor m at i on nece s s ar y t o cl os e thos e gaps w as pos s es s ed onl y by defendant s and w as notfur ni s hed ei thert o pl ai nt i ffs ort o the C o u rt ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) , vacat ed on othergr ounds by Lehm an v. Trout , 4 6 5 U .S . 1 0 5 6 (1 9 8 4 ), and abr ogat ed on othergr ounds by Berge rv. Ir on Workers R ei nf

or ced Rodm en, Local 201 , 1 7 0 F . 3 d 1 1 1 1 , 1 1 2 4 -25 (D . C . C ir .-28-

1999) . Forexam pl e, i n D othard v. R aw l i ns on , 4 3 3 U. S . 3 2 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , th e S u p r e me C our tdet er m i ned thatpl ai nt i ffs w ho w er e cha l l engi ng A l abam a’ s hei ghtand w ei ghtr equi r em ent s forpr i s on guar ds coul d us e hei ghtand w ei ghts t at i s t i cs bas ed o n n a tio n a l d a ta fo r c o m p a riso n . “[R ]e lian c e o n g e n e ra l p o p u latio n d e m o g ra p h ic dat a w as notm i s pl ace d w her e ther e w as no r eas on t o s uppos e thatphys i cal hei ght and w ei ghtchar act er i s t i cs ofA l abam a m en and w om en di fferm arkedl y fr om th o s e o f t h e n a tio n a l p o p u la tio n .” Id. at330. N ev erthe less, ab sen t a close fi t betw ee n the p o p u lat ion u sed to m ea su re di s par at e i m pactand the popul at i on oft hos e qual i fi ed fora bene fi t , t he s t at i s t i cal r es ul t s cannotbe per s uas i ve. “[ S] t at i s t i cs bas ed on an a ppl i cantpool cont ai ni ng i ndi vi dual s l acki ng m i ni m al qual i fi cati ons fort he j ob w oul d be ofl i t t l e pr obat i ve val ue. ” Wats on , 4 8 7 U .S . a t 9 9 7 . T hu s, a st at i st i cal analysi s canno test abli sh a plai nti ff ’s pri m a faci e case u n les s it is b a se d o n d a ta r e stric ted to q u a lified e m p lo y e e s, o r (1 ) re liab le d a ta w i t h r es pectt o thatgr oup ar e unava i l abl e and ( 2) t he pl ai nt i ffes t abl i s hes t hatthe s t at i s t i cal anal ys i s us es a r el i abl e pr oxy forqual i fi cati on. T hi s appr oach hol ds plai nti ffs t o thei r s t at utor y b urden to “dem on strat e[] t hat a r espon den tuses a p a rt ic u la r e m p lo y m e n t p ra c tic e th a t c a u s e s a d is p a ra te im p a c t o n th e b a s is o f . . .T he s t atut e pr ovi des anotheravenue forpl ai nt i ffs w hen the part i cul ar 2 as pectof the pr oces s thati s cl ai m ed t o be obj ect i onabl e ca nnotbe i s ol at ed: [T]he compl ai ni ng partys hal l demonstr at e thateac h part i cul ar chal l enged e m pl oym entpr act i ce c aus es a di s par at e i m pact , exce pt thati f the compl ai ni ng partycan de m ons tr at e t o the courtthatthe el ement s of a r es pondent ’ s deci s i onm aki ng pr oces s ar e notcapabl e of s epar at i on foranal y s i s , the dec i s i onm aki ng pr oces s m aybe ana l y zed as one empl oym entpr act i ce. 4 2 U . S . C . § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (k)(1 )(B )(i ). P lai n ti ffs arg u e in th eir replyb ri ef to this co u rt th a t th e y“ p re se n ted fa c ts b e lo w th a t d e fe n d a n t’s c o llec tiv e b a rg a in in g a g re e m e n ts i m pos ed no meani ngful obj ect i ve s t andar ds on s upervi s or s i n as s i gni ng overt i m e” and that“[s ] uch a s how i ng i s s uffi ci entt o tr i ggers ubs ect i on 2000- e2( k) ( 1) ( B ) ( i ) . ” R ep. A pl t s . R epl yB r . at10. B uttheypr ovi de no ci t at i on t o the re c o rd sh o w in g th a t th e yra ise d th is iss u e in d istric t co u rt, an d w e c a n n o t fin d in the r ecor d anythi ng i ndi cat i ng t o thatcourtthattheyw er e att empt i ng t o m ake the r equi r ed s how i ng of ana l yt i cal i ns epar abi l i ty . W e w i l l notaddr es s the pot ent i al appl i cat i on of § 2 0 0 0 e-2 (k)(1 )(B )(i ) to P lain tiffs’ c laim , b e c a u se o u r g e n e ra l ru le is n o t to a d d re s s a rg u m e n ts th a t w e re n o t fir s t p re s e n te d to th e d is tr ic t c o u rt , s ee C um m i ngs v. Nor t on , 393 F. 3d 1186, 1190 ( 10th C i r . 2005) ( the “ge ner al rul e that i s s ues notr ai s ed bel ow ar e w ai ved on appe al ” i s part i cul ar l yi m por t anton appea l o f su m m aryjud g m en t) ; B ancam er i ca C om m er ci alC or p. v. Mos herSt eelof Kans as , Inc. , 1 0 0 F .3 d 7 9 2 , 7 9 8 -9 9 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ) (“ W h e re a lit ig a n t ch a n g e s to a new theoryon appea l thatfal l s underthe s ame gener al cat egoryas an ar gum ent pr es ent ed attr i al orpr es ent s a theorythatw as di s cus s ed i n a vague and ambi guous w aythe theoryw i l l notbe cons i der ed on appe al . ” ( br acke t s and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ) , and w e part i cul ar l yfr ow n on the maki ng of n e w a rg u m e n ts in a p a rt y ’s re p ly b ri e f, s ee Stump v. G at es , 211 F. 3d 527, 533 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). -29- se x ,” 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 0 0 0 e -2 (k )(1 )(A )(i), w ith o u t im p o sin g a n in su rm o u n tab le bur den w hen r el i abl e dat a on a qua l i fi cati on ar e notavai l abl e. 2 D . A p p l i cati on to t h i s C ase T he em pl oym entpr acti ce c hal l enged by Pl ai nt i ffs i s t he exe r ci s e of di s cr et i on by s uper vi s or s i n as s i gni ng over t i m e. A s s t at ed i n S m ith , “[ T ] he pr oper-30-

popul at i on foranal ys i s i s t he . . . el i gi bl e l aborpool . ” 196 F. 3d at368. T he B oei ng hour l y em pl oyees el i gi bl e foran over t i m e as s i gnm entar e thos e w ho s at i s fy t he C B A r equi r em ent s forthe as s i gnm ent ; thati s , the cha l l enged pr acti ce o p e r a t e s o n l y wi th r e s p e c tt o e mp l o y e e s e l i g i b l e u n d e rth e CB A. Th e CBA re q u ire s th a t o v e rtim e first b e o ffe re d to “ th e e m p lo y e e re g u lar ly a ss ig n e d to ei t herthe m achi ne, j ob, cr ew , orpos i t i on” forw hi ch overt i m e i s t o be s chedul ed, a n d th e n to o th e rs w ith in th e s a m e “ s h o p o r s h ift.” R e p . A p lts . S u p p . A p p . V o l. 1 a t 1 0 . T h e S isk in S tu d y , h o w e v e r, d id n o t in c o rp o ra te th e C B A ’s e lig ib ili ty r equi r em ent s i n i t s anal ys i s . I ns t ead, i tcontr ol l ed for“j ob, ” “gr ade, ” “budge t c o d e ,” a n d “ s h ift.” R . D o c . 3 4 6 a t 2 3 . T h e im p licit a ss u m p tio n is th a t tw o h o u rly w or ker s w i th t he s am e j ob, gr ade, budgetcode, and s hi fthave e qual oppor tuni t i es fo r o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n ts u n d e r t h e C B A , s u bje c t to th e s u p e rv is o r’ s d is c re tio n . T h e re is c e rta in ly o v e rla p b e tw e e n th e S isk in S tu d y v a ria b les a n d th o se u se d to d e te rm in e o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n ts . B u t th e tw o s e ts o f v a ri a b le s a re n o t th e s a m e . A m ong the qual i fi cati ons i ncl uded i n the C B A , t he Si s ki n St udy contr ol l ed for onl y “j ob” and “ s hi ft . ” I tdi d notacc ountforw hetherw om en w or ked on the “m achi ne” orw er e i n t he “c r ew , ” “pos i t i on, ” or“s hop” t o w hi ch the overt i m e w as a s s i g n e d . T h i s fa i l u r e c a n s k e w th e r e s u l t s . I f , fo re x a mp l e , o v e r t i me as s i gnm ent s w er e conc entr at ed i n a handful ofs hops and al m os tno w om en w or ked i n thos e s hops , a di s cr epanc y found i n the Si s ki n St udy bet w een the o v e rtim e w o rk e d b y m e n a n d b y w o m e n w o u ld n o t at a ll rep re se n t a d isp a ra te-31-

im p a c t cr e a ted b y th e su p e rv iso r’s d isc re tio n a ry c h o ice a m o n g e lig ib le em pl oyees . R ather , i tcoul d s i m pl y be a r efl ecti on ofthe gende rdi s tr i but i on am ong t hos e el i gi bl e forover t i m e. A tthe out s et , ther efor e, i tappea r s thatthe Si s ki n St udy cannotes t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e ca s e bas ed on a c om par i s on “bet w een ( a) t he [ gender ] com pos i t i on, caus ed by the cha l l enged e m pl oym entpr acti ce, of t he pool ofthos e enj oyi ng a . . . j ob benefi t ; and ( b) the [ gender ] com pos i t i on of th e q u a lifie d a p p lic a n t p o o l,” C r um , 198 F. 3d at1312, beca us e the s tudy i s not lim ite d to d a ta re g a rd in g th o s e q u a lifie d p e o p le s u bje c t to th e c h a lle n g e d p ra c tic e . T he s t udy does noti s ol at e the effectofs uper vi s ordi s cr et i on fr om the effectof th e C B A re q u ir e m e n ts . See Anders on , 4 0 6 F .3 d a t 2 6 0 . A ccor di ngl y, w e l ook t o w hetherPl ai nt i ffs have a dequat el y es t abl i s hed that ( 1) r el i abl e dat a on the om i t t ed C B A cr i t er i a w er e unava i l abl e and ( 2) they us ed a r el i abl e pr oxy. T hey have not . T o begi n w i th, Pl ai nt i ffs have notes t abl i s hed that the d ata n ec essa ry to estab li sh the im p ac t on C B A -qu ali fi ed w o rke rs w ere unavai l abl e. Pl ai nt i ffs acknow l edge thatvar i abl es s uch as cr ew , pos i t i on, and s hop ar e r el evant t o qual i fi cati on for over t i m e under the C B A butcl ai m t hatt hey cann ot be hel d respon si ble for i ncludi ng t hem i n thei r s t at i st i cal analysi s becau se “B oei ng di d notm ai nt ai n el ectr oni c dat a on any oft he om i t t ed var i abl es . ” R ep. A p lts. B r. at 3 5 . B u t d a ta m a y b e a v a ilab le in n o n e lec tro n ic fo rm . E lec tro n ic dat a ar e undeni abl y m or e conve ni ent , es peci al l y forus e i n s t at i s t i cal s tudi es , but i nconveni ence does notexcus e fai l ur e t o col l ectt he dat a. Pl ai nt i ffs have-32-

pr es ent ed no r eas on w hy t he om i t t ed i nfor m at i on coul d nothave be en pr ocur ed t hr ough otherm ethods , s uch as depos i t i ons ori nt err ogat or i es . I tappea r s thatthey w e re sim p ly sa tisfie d w ith B o e in g ’s in d ica tio n th a t th e d a ta w e re u n a v a ilab le in t heirel ectroni c pay rol l recor ds. Fur ther m or e, even w er e w e convi nced thatt he dat a ar e unava i l abl e, P lai n ti ffs ha v e fa il ed to d em o n str ate tha t th e v ariab les i n the S iskin S tud y ’s s t at i s t i cal anal ys i s pr oduce ar el i abl e s urr ogat e forqual i fi cati ons forover t i m e; t hati s , thatthe r es ul t s acc ur at el y r efl ectcom par i s ons bet w een i ndi vi dual s w ho w er e equa l l y el i gi bl e forover t i m e as s i gnm ent s undert he C B A . Pl ai nt i ffs m ake th e b a ld c laim th a t th e “ g ra d e ” a n d “ b u d g e t co d e ” v a ria b les u se d b y th e S isk in St udy ar e equi val entt o t he om i t t ed var i abl es “cr ew , ” “pos i t i on, ” and “ s hop. ” See R e p . A p lts. R e p ly B r. at 5 (“ [I]n th e a b se n c e o f sp e c ific e lec tro n ic d a ta m ai nt ai ned by B oei ng i dent i fyi ng em pl oyees ’ ‘ s hops ’ or‘ cr ew s , ’ [ D r . Si s ki n] cl os el y tr acke d t hi s i nfor m at i on by us i ng as a pr oxy budgetcodes and gr ade lev e ls th a t re fle c ted th e ir a re a a n d lev e l o f w o rk .”). B u t th e y m a k e n o a ttem p t to expl ai n the bas i s ofthi s cl ai m . W e ca nnotagr ee thatt hos e r el at i ons hi ps ar e as s el f- evi dentas Pl ai nt i ffs appar ent l y bel i eve them t o be. T he r ecor d does noteven in d ic a te w h a t a “ b u d g e t c o d e ” is . P la in tiffs ’ “ m e re a s s e rt io n ” w ill n o t s u ffic e . See York , 95 F. 3d at955. A ccor di ngl y, w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcour tt hatt he Si s ki n St udy w as i ns uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e di s par at e- i m pactcas e.-33-

Pl ai nt i ffs r el y on B az em or e v. F r i day , 478 U . S. 385, 400 ( 1986) , and B ul l i ngt on , 186 F. 3d at1314, t o ar gue thatfai l ur e t o defi ne per fect l y the popul at i on ofqual i fi ed em pl oyees does notpr eventt he Si s ki n St udy fr om e s ta b lis h in g th e irc la im . B oth deci si on s ar e dis t i ng uis hab l e, ho w ever, becau se th e m iss in g v a ria b les c o n sid e re d b y th e tw o c o u rts d id n o t re late to m in im a l, obj ect i ve q uali fi cat i on s. A j ury cou l d d eci de thatt he m i ssi ng vari able i n those c a se s w a s n o t li k e ly to a ffe c t th e e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n to a sig n ifica n t ex ten t— a rathe r differen t m att er from ign o ri n g a fa ctor tha t disqu ali fi es a ca n d idate b efo re di s cr et i on com es i nt o pl ay. I n B azem ore th e U n ited S tate s a n d o th e rs b ro u g h t a p a ttern -o r-p ra c tice su it agai ns tthe N or th C ar ol i na A gr i cul tur al E xt ens i on Ser vi ce, al l egi ng r aci al di s cr i m i nat i on i n s al ar i es ; the pl ai nt i ffs offer ed s t at i s t i cal evi dence t hatcontr ol l ed fo r r a c e , e d u c a tio n , te n u re , a n d jo b title . See 4 7 8 U .S . a t 3 9 8 . T he courtof appea l s had uphel d t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s r ej ecti on oft he s t at i s t i cal evi dence , r ul i ng t hat“‘ t he r egr es s i on anal ys i s pr es ent ed her e m us tbe cons i der ed unac cept abl e as evi dence ofdi s cr i m i nat i on, ’ ” bec aus e i t“‘ om i t t ed . . . var i abl es w hi ch oughtt o be r eas onabl y vi ew ed as det er m i nant s ofs al ar y, ’ ” i d. at399- 400 ( quot i ng B azem ore v . F r ida y , 751 F. 2d 662, 672 ( 4th C i r . 1984) ) , par t i cul ar l y geogr aphi c var i at i ons in s a la ry , B azem ore , 478 U . S. at399. T he Supr em e C our tdi s agr eed. I ntr oduci ng i t s anal ysi s i tno t ed that“i f the d efendan t s have n ot s uccee ded i n h aving a case di s m i s s ed on the gr ound thatpl ai nt i ffs have fai l ed t o es t abl i s h a pr i m a faci e ca s e,-34-

and have r es ponded t o the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr oofby offer i ng evi dence ofthei row n, the fact fi nderthen m us tdeci de w hetherthe pl ai nt i ffs have de m ons tr at ed a pa t t er n or pr acti ce ofdi s cr i m i nat i on by a pr eponder ance ofthe evi dence . ” Id . at 39 8 . It th e n sa id , “[I ]t is c lea r th a t a r e g re ss io n a n a ly sis th a t in c lu d e s le ss th a n ‘a ll m e a su ra b le v a ria b les ’ m a y se rv e to p ro v e a p lain tiff’s c a se . . . . W h e th e r, in fa c t, s uch a r egr es s i on anal ys i s does carr y the pl ai nt i ff ’ s ul t i m at e bur den w i l l depend i n a gi ven ca s e on the factual cont extofeac h cas e i n l i ghtofal l the evi dence pr es ent ed by both the pl ai nt i ffand the defendant . ” Id. at400 ( i nt er nal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T he C our tr em anded forcons i der at i on ofthe part i cul archar act er i s t i cs oft he r egr es s i on anal ys i s t o det er m i ne w hetheri tw as s uffi ci ent l y pr obat i ve. As w e under s t and the opi ni on, the r egr es s i on anal ys i s w as notus ed t o es t abl i s h the p rim a fa c ie c a se , b u t to p ro v e d isc rim in a tio n o n c e th e p re se n c e o f a p rim a fa c ie cas e w as es t abl i s hed, oratl eas tuncont es t ed. T he pr i m a face cas e r equi r ed a s h o w in g th a t q u a lifie d b la c k s w e re re c e iv in g lo w e r s a la ri e s th a n q u a lifie d w h ite s . T he r egr es s i on anal ys i s then exa m i ned w hetherotherfact or s — s uch as educa t i on, ten u re , an d jo b tit le— c o u ld a c c o u n t fo r th is d iffe re n c e . F a ilu re to tak e in to a c c o u n t all p o ten tial fa c to rs d id n o t n e c e ss a rily re n d e r th e re g re ss io n a n a ly sis unpr obat i ve. M or eover , ther e w as no ques t i on i n B azem ore , as t her e i s her e, r egar di ng w hetherthe dat a conc er ned per s ons w ho w er e notqual i fi ed orel i gi bl e fort he benefi tati s s ue— nam el y, a hi ghers al ar y. T he s t at i s t i cal s tudy com par ed s al ar i es-35-

ofper s ons em pl oyed by the ext ens i on s er vi ce. T he i s s ue w as w hetherdi s cr et i on i n s ett i ng s al ar i es w as exer ci s ed i n a di s cr i m i nat or y m anner . T he s t at i s t i cal s tudy t ook i nt o acc ounts om e fact or s t hatm i ghti nfl uence the exe r ci s e ofdi s cr et i on and om i t t ed o thers; bu tt here i s no indi cat i on that i tom i t t ed an y fact or that w as a nondi s cr et i onar y det er m i nantofs al ar y ( s uch as a m axi m um s al ar y es t abl i s hed for a sp ec ific j o b ti tl e). B ul l i ngt on c o n sid e re d a d isp a ra te- im p a c t cla im o f g e n d e r d isc rim in a tio n in th e h ir in g o f a ir lin e fl ig h t o ffic e rs . See 186 F. 3d at1312. T he pl ai nt i ffoffer ed s t at i s t i cs i ndi cati ng thatthe i nt er vi ew pas s r at e forw om en w as onl y 60% oft he p a s s ra te fo r m e n . See i d. T he di s tr i ctcour tr ej ect ed the s t at i s t i cal s tudy and gr ant ed s um m ar y j udgm entt o t he ai r l i ne, beca us e the pas s r at es w er e notadj us t ed fo r h y p o th e s iz e d d iffe re n c e s in a e ro n a u tic a l e x p e ri e n c e b e tw e e n m e n a n d w o m e n . Id. at1312- 13. W e re v e rse d , co n c lu d in g th a t th e sta tistics w e re “ su ffic ien tly reli ab le” b ec au se th e stu d y w as p rop erly li m it ed to ind ividu als w h o w ere m i ni m al l y qual i fi ed forthe pos i t i ons ( other w i s e they w oul d nothave be en gi ven a n in te rv ie w in th e fi rs t p la c e ). Id. at1314. A gai n, t he s t at i s t i cal s tudy exam i ned onl y the exe r ci s e ofdi s cr et i on— thi s t i m e i n the i nt er vi ew pr oces s . A j ur y can w ei gh w hetherom i s s i on ofa fact ort hatcoul d affectt he exe r ci s e ofdi s cr et i on r ender s an ana l ys i s unper s uas i ve. B utno one coul d di s agr ee thatan obj ecti ve el i gibi l i t y requir em ent i s a necessar y co m po nen tof the an al ysi s.-36-

T h u s, th e v a ria b les o m itt e d fro m th e re g re ss io n a n a ly se s in b o th B azem ore and B ul l i ngt on r el at ed t o char act er i s t i cs t hatdi d notaffectw hethert he popul at i on stu d ied w a s “ m in im a lly q u a lified ” fo r th e b e n e fit so u g h t. T h e g e o g ra p h ic var i at i ons i n s al ar y ati s s ue i n B azem ore h ad n o thing to d o w ith w h ethe r a p a rt ic u la r i n d iv id u a l w a s m in im a lly q u a lifie d to re c e iv e a h ig h e r s a la ry . See 478 U . S. at398. I n B ul l i ngt on the l evel ofaer onaut i cal exper i ence w as cert ai nl y a per m i s s i bl e cons i der at i on i n t he i nt er vi ew pr oces s , buti tw as onl y one ofm any fact or s cons i der ed i n a s ubj ecti ve det er m i nat i on, nota m andat or y cr i t er i on for bei ng hi r ed. I n contr as t , the Si s ki n St udy di d notconfi ne i t s el ft o the per s ons e lig ib le fo r a n o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n t. See O r t ega , 943 F. 2d at1245 ( s t at i s t i cs not pr obat i ve bec aus e they di d nott ake i nt o acc ountqual i fi cati ons fort he j obs av ail ab le). O ur conc l usi on i s not unde rm i ned by t he “m assi ve o vert i m e dis pari t i es” that P lai n ti ffs all eg e a re rev ea led b y the S iskin S tud y ’s an alys is. R ep . A p lt s. B r. a t 3 8 . T h e y c o n ten d th a t th e se d isp a rities a re so lar g e th a t a s u b sta n tial d isp a rity w oul d cer t ai nl y be pr es enteven i ft he s t at i s t i cal anal ys i s w er e adj us t ed t o acc ount forthe C B A r equi r em ent s . Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue: B oei ng’ s exper tr epor taffi r m at i vel y dem ons tr at ed thatt he gende rof t he em pl oyee r egul ar l y as s i gned t o the m achi ne orpos i t i on forw hi ch o v e r t i me wo r k wa s n e e d e d wa s l a r g e l y i rr e l e v a n tt o t h e o v e r t i me d i s p a r i t i e s . B o e i n g ’ s e x p e r td e t e r mi n e d t h a t , fo r7 8 % o fo v e r t i me oppor tuni t i es , m or e than one e m pl oyee w as el i gi bl e t o w or k the o v erti m e. T h u s, ev en ifthere h ad b ee n rea so n to b eli ev e tha t m o re m en than w om en w er e the s ol e em pl oyees r egul ar l y as s i gned t o the-37-

m achi ne orpos i t i on forw hi ch overt i m e w or k w as r equi r ed, l es s than 25% oft he over t i m e oppor tuni t i es s tudi ed by Si s ki n w oul d have be en affect ed b y h i s om i ssi on of this vari able. V i ew ed in the li gh tm ost favor abl e t o pl ai nt i ffs , thi s factcas t s gr ave doubton w hetherthe om i s s i on ofthi s var i abl e expl ai ns the m as s i ve overt i m e di s par i t i es fou n d b y S iskin, prec lud ing the d istri ct co u rtfrom rejecti n g S iskin’s anal ys i s on thi s gr ound. Id. at 37 -38 (reco rd c it ati o n o m itted). A s w e n o w p roc ee d to ex p lai n , h o w ev er, t hi s ar gum entm i s appr ehends the s t at i s t i cal evi dence by confus i ng the m agni t ude o f th e d ispa ri ti es w ith their l eve l of s tat i s t i cals i gni f i cance , as m e a su re d in st and ard dev i at i on s. T her e i s no di s put e thatthe Si s ki n St udy’ s r egr es s i on anal ys i s r efl ect ed a di ffer ence i n the am ountofover t i m e w or ked by m en and w om en thatw as m any s t andar d devi at i ons r em oved fr om equal i t y. T he Si s ki n St udy com put ed depart ur es fr om equal tr eatm entofm en and w om en w hos e s t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e r anged fr om 7. 95 s t andar d devi at i ons ( w eeke nd over t i m e dur i ng 2002) t o 38. 03 ( w eekda y over t i m e dur i ng 1999) . T hats t at i s t i cal s i gni fi canc e, how ever , does not nece s s ar i l y m ean thatthe depa r tur e fr om equal i t y w as l ar ge. Forexam pl e, t he Si s ki n St udy cal cul at ed thatw om en w or ked an a ver age of19% few erhour s of w e e k d a y o v e rt im e in 1 9 9 9 , 1 7 % fe w e r i n 2 0 0 0 a n d 2 0 0 1 , a n d 1 1 % fe w e r i n 2 0 0 2 . Forw eeke nd over t i m e i tcal cul at ed thatw om en w or ked an a ver age of18% few er over t i m e hour s i n 1999, 19% few eri n 2000, 18% few eri n 2001, and 10% few er in 2 0 0 2 . A lth o u g h n o table, th ese are notw hatm os tw oul d cal l “m as s i ve di s par i t i es ”— i ti s nothi ng l i ke m en r ece i vi ng pr opor t i onat el y even t w i ce a s m uch-38-

o v e rt im e a s w o m e n . In d e e d , g u id e lin e s fr o m th e E q u a l E m p lo y m e n t O p p o rtu n ity C om m i s s i on dr aw a l i ne ( al bei tnota r i gi d one) ata 20% di s par i t y: A s el ecti on r at e forany r ace , s ex, orethni c gr oup w hi ch i s l es s t han four - fi fths ( 4/ 5) ( orei ght y per cent ) oft he r at e fort he gr oup w i th the hi ghes tr at e w i l l gener al l y be r egar ded by the Feder al enfor cem ent ag en cies a s ev iden ce o f ad v erse im p ac t, w h il e a g rea ter th an fou rfi ft hs r at e w i l l gener al l y notbe r egar ded by Feder al enfor cem ent a g e n c ie s a s e v id e n c e o f a d v e rs e im p a c t. 2 9 C .F .R . § 1 6 0 7 .4 (D ); accord 28 C . F. R . § 50. 14( 4) ( D ) ( D epart m entofJ us t i ce G u id e lin e s); se e S m ith , 196 F. 3d at365 ( tr eati ng “four - fi fths ” gui del i ne as p e rsu a siv e ); Thom as v. M et r of l i ght, Inc . , 814 F. 2d 1506, 1511 n. 4 ( i dent i fyi ng t he E E O C g u id e lin e a s “ [o ]n e p o ss ib le in d e x o f su b sta n tial d isp a rity ” ); c f. M al donado , 433 F. 3d at1305 ( “EE O C gui del i nes , w hi l e notcontr ol l i ng upon the cour t s by r eas on ofthei rauthor i t y, do cons t i tut e a body ofexper i ence and i nfor m ed j udgm entt o w hi ch court s and l i t i gant s m ay pr oper l y r es or tfor g u idan ce . ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). W h at th e larg e n u m b er o f st an d ard d ev iat ion s m ea n s is th at th e d ep arture fr o m e q u a l i t y , wh a t e v e ri t s ma g n i tu d e , i s h i g h l y u n l i k e l y t o b e r a n d o m. Of co u rse, w h en there are m assiv e d ispa ri ti es, th e d ifferen ce m ay b e m an y stan d ard d e v iatio n s. B u t w h e n , as h e re , the re is a g re a t d e a l o f d a ta, e v e n a re lativ e ly s m al l di ffer ence m ay be hi ghl y s t at i s t i cal l y s i gni fi cant( thati s , unl i kel y t o be r andom ) . C ons i deran expe r i m enti nvol vi ng 1, 000, 000 fl i ps ofa coi n. T he canoni cal r es ul t , ofcour s e, w oul d be 500, 000 heads and 500, 000 t ai l s . Say, the-39-

r es ul t s w er e 510, 000 heads and 490, 000 t ai l s . A l though the m agni tude ofthe di ffer ence i s s m al l , onl y about 4% m or e heads than t ai l s , t he odds ofs uch a di ffer ence occurr i ng i n t he abs ence ofa w ei ght ed coi n ar e exc eedi ngl y s m al l

— the d e p a rtu re fro m e q u a lity is 2 0 sta n d a rd d e v iatio n s. T h e d iffe re n c e stro n g ly i nd i cat es s o me i nfl uence on t he r es ul t s othert han the oper at i on ofpur e cha nce. L i kew i s e, underthe Si s ki n St udy’ s anal ys i s , i ti s ver y, ver y unl i kel y that t h e d i ffe r e n c e i n th e a s s i g n me n to fo v e r t i me t o me n a n d wo me n wi th t h e s a me j ob, gr ade, budgetcode, and s hi fti s a r andom event . A s t he Si s ki n St udy o b se rv e d , “C lea rly , so m e th in g in th e o v e rtim e p ro c e ss c o n sis ten tly re su lts in ma l e s o b t a i n i n g mor e o v e r t i me a n d wo r k i n g mor e o v e r t i me t h a n fe ma l e s . ” R. D oc. 346 at23. T he l ar ge num berofs t andar d devi at i ons t el l s us nothi ng about w hatthat“s om ethi ng” i s , how ever , othert han thati ti s notbas ed on di ffer ence s in jo b , g ra d e , b u d g e t co d e , o r sh ift. A s a r es ul t , i tcoul d be ver y i m por t ant , contr ar y t o Pl ai nt i ffs ’ br i ef, t hat near l y a quart erofthe overt i m e oppor tuni t i es w er e i n w or k done by onl y one person i f, as i m pli edly ass um ed in the ab ov e-quoted passage fr om P l ai nti ffs’ b ri ef, m en d ispro p o rt ion ately h eld th o se p o sition s o r th e o ffers of o v erti m e w ere co n ce n tr ated in su ch p o sition s h eld b y m en . (In su ch situ ati o n s the re is ve ry l i t t l e, i fany, s uper vi s ordi s cr et i on i n the as s i gnm entofover t i m e, beca us e the C B A pr ovi des thatthe per s on w ho nor m al l y per for m s t he w or k s houl d be offer ed it first.) S im ilarly , itc o u ld b e q u ite im p o rta n t if m e n a re d isp ro p o rtio n a tely-40-

e mp l o y e d i n c r e ws i n wh i c h o v e r t i me i s a v a i l a b l e t o e v e r y o n e i n th e u n i t . Of c o u rse , su c h g e n d e r d isp a rities in th e se p o sitio n s c o u ld in d ica te d isc rim in a tio n in h ir in g fo r t h o s e jo b s , b u t th a t is n o t th e c la im m a d e b y P la in tiffs . See Pri ce v . C i ty of C hi cago , 251 F. 3d 656, 661 ( 7th C i r . 2001) ( pl ai nt i ff ’ s s t at i s t i cal s how i ng th a t elig ib ili ty tes t m a y p ro d u c e d isp a ra te im p a c t co u ld n o t es tab lish p rim a fa c ie ca se w h en the test’s use is no t th e e m p loy m en t prac ti ce co m p lai n ed o f). A n ill u stra tio n m a y m a k e th is p ro p o sitio n c lea re r. B o e in g ’s e x p e rt, Dr . W a r d , c o n d u c t e d a s tu d y o n o v e r t i me a s s i g n me n t s th a tc o n tr o l l e d fo rth e CBA c riter ia b y su rv e y in g in d iv id u a l m a n a g e rs a b o u t th e a c tu a l o ffe rs m a d e to e lig ib le em pl oyees . Foreac h over t i m e as s i gnm ent , D r . W ar d’ s s tudy det er m i ned w ho w as e lig ib le u n d e r th e C B A a n d th e n m e a su re d w h e th e r m e n w e re d isp ro p o rtio n a tely s el ect ed forthe over t i m e. T hes e dat a w er e col l ect ed foronl y a por t i on oft he W ich ita fa c ili ty a n d o n ly fo r a tw o -m o n th p e rio d in 2 0 0 3 , so th e stu d y is h a rd ly di s pos i t i ve ofw hetherdi s cr i m i nat i on occurr ed. B utt he r es ul t s ar e i ns tr uct i ve. W hen onl y one em pl oyee nor m al l y per for m ed the w or k and w as el i gi bl e for t he o vert i m e assi gn m ent, w om en recei ved 14 % (76 of 53 5) of the o vert i m e offers , p re c ise ly w h a t w o u ld b e e x p e c ted (a c c o rd in g to th e re p o rt) g iv e n th e ir re p re s e n ta tio n in th e jo b s fr o m w h ic h th o s e o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n ts w e re m a d e . W hen m ul t i pl e w or ker s w er e el i gi bl e undert he C B A fort he as s i gnm ent , w om en r ece i ved 23% ( 430 of1855) ofthe offer s , ver y s l i ght l y m ore t han w oul d be e x p e c te d . O v e ra ll, w o m e n re c e iv e d 2 1 % (5 0 6 o f 2 3 9 0 ) o f t h e o v e rt im e o ffe rs .-41-

Fr om t hes e dat a i tappea r s l i kel y thatw om en w er e s i gni fi cant l y underr epr es ent ed i n t h o s e j o b s fo rwh i c h o n l y o n e wo r k e rwa s e l i g i b l e fo rp a r t i c u l a ro v e r t i me as s i gnm ent s , and eve n though t hos e j obs acc ount ed foronl y 22% ( 535 of2390) of the o v erti m e a ssign m en ts stu d ied, th is un d errep rese n tat ion d ec rea sed w o m en ’s per cent age ofover t i m e offer s fr om 23% ( w hen m or e than one e m pl oyee w as el i gi bl e) t o 21% ( the over al l r at e) . T hati s appr oxi m at el y a 9% r educti on i n the offerr at e t o w om en ( 21 i s 91% of23) . I n otherw or ds , contr ar y t o w hatone w oul d expec ti ft he above - quot ed ar gum entofPl ai nt i ffs w er e val i d, w om en r ece i ved 9% few eroffer s t han one w oul d expec ti fone l ooked onl y atpos i t i ons forw hi ch m or e than one w or kerw as el i gi bl e. D r. W ard’ s stud y il l ustrat es how dis pari t i es of the m agn i tud e of tho se found i n t he Si s ki n St udy coul d r es ul ts ol el y fr om underr epr es ent at i on ofw om en in jo b s fo r w h ic h o n ly o n e e m p lo y e e is e lig ib le fo r o v e rt im e a s s ig n m e n ts . L ikew ise, ev en in situ ati o n s in w h ich s ev era l em p loy ee s are eli g ible to w o rk over t i m e, w om en coul d be underr epr es ent ed i n the cr ew s m os tl i kel y t o r ece i ve cal l s forover t i m e w or k. Y et , Pl ai nt i ffs have nots how n how the Si s ki n St udy par am et er s w oul d acc ountfors uch underr epr es ent at i on. W e d o n o t m ea n to m ak e too m u ch o f D r. W ard ’s stu d y . W e c ertainly a re nots ayi ng thati tdi s pr oves Pl ai nt i ffs ’ al l egati ons ofdi s par at e i m pact . B utthat s t udy cl ear l y s how s t he fl aw s i n the r eas oni ng ofPl ai nt i ffs ’ br i ef

— thatthe l ar ge n u m b e r o f sta n d a rd d e v iatio n s c a lcu late d in th e S isk in S tu d y m a k e s it-42-

unnece s s ar y t o det er m i ne w hetherthe par am et er s us ed i n thats tudy ar e good pr oxi es forthe C B A el i gi bi l i t y r equi r em ent s . T o r epea t , the ver y l ar ge num berof s t andar d devi at i ons does notm ean thatthe gr os s di ffer ence i n the am ountof over t i m e w or ked by m en and w om en i s i t s el fl ar ge; i tj us tm eans thatthe di ffer ence i s ver y unl i kel y t o be r andom . B uts i nce the C B A r equi r em ent s not i ncl uded i n the Si s ki n St udy m odel ar e notr andom , and m ay w el l i m pactm en and w om en di ffer ent l y ( as D r . W ar d’ s s tudy s ugges t s ) , the r es ul t s ofthe Si s ki n St udy a re c o n sis ten t w ith th e C B A re q u ire m e n ts b e in g th e c a u se o f th e d isp a rity in o v erti m e a ssign m en ts— at l ea st i n the a b sen ce o f ev iden ce that the S iskin S tud y ’s par am et er s ar e r el i abl e pr oxi es forthe C B A r equi r em ent s . T her e bei ng no s uch e v i d e n c e , th e S i s k i n S tu d y d o e s n o ts a t i s fy P l a i n t i ffs ’ b u r d e n t o e s t a b l i s h a p r i ma faci e ca s e. I V. CL AI M S OF D EA N PL AI NT I FFS A l s o on appea l ar e cl ai m s by the D ean Pl ai nt i ffs . T hey as k us t o r evi ew the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s deni al ofr econs i der at i on ofthei rr em oval as cl as s r epr es ent at i ves and deni al ofthei rm ot i on forr ecus al ofJ udge B r ow n. T he di s tr i ctcour ti ncl uded th e s e ru lin g s in its c e rt ific a tio n o f a fi n a l ju d g m e n t u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 4 (b ). W e re v ie w th e ru lin g s o n b o th m o tio n s fo r a n a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . See Pri ce v . P hi l pot , 4 2 0 F .3 d 1 1 5 8 , 1 1 6 7 n .9 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (m o tio n to re c o n sid e r is r evi ew ed forabus e ofdi s cr et i on r egar dl es s ofw hetheri ti s cons tr ued as r ai s ed u n d er F ed . R . C iv. P. 59 o r 60 ); Fym bo v. Stat e Farm F i r e and C as . C o. , 213 F. 3d-43-

13 20 , 13 21 (10t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( fi nd i ng that i nd i vidual i s not adequ at e cl ass rep rese n tat ive is su bject t o ab u se-o f-discreti o n rev iew ); H i gganbotham v. O klah o m a ex rel. O klah o m a Tra n sp . C o m m ’n , 328 F. 3d 638, 645 ( 10th C i r . 2003) ( deni al ofm ot i on t o r ecus e i s r evi ew ed forabus e ofdi s cr et i on) . N ei therdeci s i on by t he di s tr i ctcour tw as i ncorr ect , l etal one an a bus e ofdi s cr et i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tbas ed i t s i ni t i al r ul i ng r em ovi ng the D ean Pl ai nt i ffs as cl as s r epr es ent at i ves on thei rongoi ng dem and t o be pai d a “c ons ul t ant ’ s fee” of 15% ofany att or ney fees obt ai ned by cl as s couns el . I n i t s deni al oft hei rm ot i on t o r econs i der , the cour ts t at ed thatt he D ean Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r epea t ed publ i c r efer ence s t o pr i vi l eged c onver s at i ons w i th cl as s couns el onl y s tr engthened i t s i ni t i al concl us i on thatthey putthei row n i nt er es t s above thos e oft he cl as s . G i ven s uch c o n d u c t, w e a g re e w ith th e d istric t co u rt th a t th e D e a n P lain tiffs w o u ld n o t “fa irly a n d a d e q u a te ly p ro te c t th e in te re s ts o f t h e c la s s ” a s re q u ir e d b y R u le 2 3 (a )( 4 ). See Rut t er& W i l banks C or p. v. Shel l O i l C o. , 3 1 4 F . 3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 7 -88 (10 th C ir . 2002) ( “R es ol ut i on oft w o ques t i ons det er m i nes l egal adequa cy: ( 1) do the nam ed plai nti ffs and thei r counsel have an y co nfl i ct s of i nter estw i th o ther cl ass m em ber s and ( 2) w i l l the nam ed pl ai nt i ffs and thei rcouns el pr os ecut e the ac t i on v ig o ro u s ly o n b e h a lfo f t h e c la s s ? ” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d )) . S i m i l arl y, the d i stri ctcou rtdid not err i n d eny i ng t he D ean P l ai nti ffs’ m o tio n fo r re c u sa l. A s th e c o u rt th o ro u g h ly e x p lain e d in its o rd e r, th e ir

“ u n su b sta n tiate d su g g e stio n s, sp e c u latio n s, [a n d ] o p in io n s,” a re in su ffic ien t to-44-

e sta b lish e v e n th e a p p e a ra n c e o f a n y b ias , p reju d ice , o r m isc o n d u c t th a t w o u ld w arr antj udi ci al r ecus al . R ep. A pl t s . Supp. A pp. V ol . 1 at73 ( D i s t . C t . O r derof 1 /7 /2 0 0 4 ); s ee Bry ce v . E pi s copalC hur ch i n the D i oces e of C ol o. , 289 F. 3d 648, 659- 60 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ( di s cus s i ng the s t andar ds forr ecus al ) . “[ A ] j udge . . . has a s s tro n g a d u ty to sit w h e n th e re is n o leg iti m a te r e a so n to re c u se a s h e d o e s to r ecus e w hen the l aw and fact s r equi r e. ” B ryce , 289 F. 3d at659 ( i nt er nal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). T h e d istric t ju d g e c o rre c tly re c o g n ize d h is d u ty to c o n tin u e to s it in th is c a s e . V. CO NC L US I ON F o r th e re a so n s s tate d a b o v e , P lain tiffs’ p e tit io n fo r p e rm iss io n to a p p e a l is D ISM ISS E D . T he d i stri ctcou rt ’s sum m ary j ud gm ent and i t s denial of Plai nti ffs’ m o ti o n to rec o n side r th at de cisi o n (04 -33 3 4 ) are A F F IR M E D . T h e d istri ct co u rt ’s d is p o s itio n o f t h e m o tio n s b y th e D e a n P la in tiffs (0 4 -3 3 5 0 ) i s A F F IR M E D . B o e in g ’s c ro s s -a p p e a l ( 0 4 -3 3 5 1 ) i s D IS M IS S E D a s m o o t.