F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 17 2004

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

PUBLISH

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

LONGINO MONREAL III,

Postmaster, Sangelo, Texas; FELIX R.

FIGUEROA, U.S. Postal Inspector,

San Antonio Domicile, Texas;

LORENZO ORTIZ, Plant Manager,

North Houston, Texas; DAVID L.

MEDINA, Plant Manager, Denver

Bulk Mail Center; RICHARD M.

SANCHEZ, Lead Plant Manager,

Processing and Distribution, Omaha,

Nebraska; DAVID E. NARANJO,

Postmaster, Espanola, New Mexico;

and ERNEST N. CANDELARIA JR.,

Service Specialist, Denver Bulk Mail

Center, on behalf of themselves and

others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, in his official

capacity as Postmaster General of the

United States Postal Service,

Defendant - Appellee.

No. 02-1195

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Colorado

(D.C. No. 97-S-548)
- 2 -

David C. Warren, Warren & Boonin LLP, Boulder, Colorado (Jonathan B.

Boonin, Warren & Boonin LLP, Boulder, Colorado, and Hartley David Alley,

Wheat Ridge, Colorado, with him on the briefs) for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Eric David Miller, Attorney, Appellate Staff Civil Division, United States

Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Robert D. McCallum, Jr., Assistant

Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., John

W. Suthers, United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, and Marleigh D. Dover,

Attorney, Appellate Staff Civil Division, United States Department of Justice,

Washington, D.C. with him on the brief) for Defendant-Appellee.

Before EBEL, PORFILIO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

EBEL, Circuit Judge.

Seven management-level employees of the United States Postal Service

(“Plaintiffs”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their individual and class

allegations of race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16. The district

court dismissed their individual claims for failure to exhaust and their class

claims for failure to satisfy the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

23.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ individual claims, we find that the district court

erroneously concluded that Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative

remedies and REVERSE and REMAND these claims for further proceedings. 
1All citations herein are to the 1997 edition of the CFR, which was in effect

during the time events relevant to this case occurred. Some sections have since

been renumbered, but no substantive amendments relevant to this case have been

made.

- 3 -

With respect to the district court’s denial of class certification, however, we

AFFIRM its judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Seven management-level Hispanic employees of the United States Postal

Service (“Plaintiffs”) brought this Title VII action on behalf of themselves and

other similarly situated employees. In addition to asserting individual claims of

race and national origin discrimination, Plaintiffs also advance class claims

alleging that the United States Postal Service (“USPS”), through numerous

policies, engages in a pattern or practice of discrimination against Hispanic

management-level employees and that its policies have a disparate impact on

these employees. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ individual claims for

failure to exhaust and dismissed the class claims for failure to satisfy the

requirements of Rule 23.

Special regulations govern the filing of discrimination claims by federal

government employees. See generally 29 C.F.R., Part 1614.1

 Pursuant to these

regulations, employees who wish to file claims of discrimination must first
2Now 29 C.F.R. § 1614.407.

3The claims asserted in these complaints were:

• In November 1994, Plaintiff Medina alleged that Area Vice President Craig

Wade did not select him for promotion to the position of Manager of

Operations for the Western Area in August 1994, or the position of District

Manager, Denver, in September 1994. 

• In May 1995, Plaintiff Monreal alleged that on January 3, 1995, he was not

selected for the position of Postmaster in Austin, Texas. 

• In March 1996, Plaintiff Monreal alleged that on December 9, 1996, the

Customer Services Manager reduced the staffing of the San Angelo Post

(continued...)

- 4 -

“consult a Counselor prior to filing a complaint in order to try to informally

resolve the matter.” 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a) (1997). If the counseling is

unsuccessful, the employee may file a formal complaint with the agency that

discriminated against him or her. Id. § 1614.106. Employees wishing to file a

complaint of class discrimination must follow similar procedures. Id. § 1614.204. 

If 180 days passes without a final decision by the agency or the EEOC on an

individual or class complaint, the complaining employee may file a civil action

against the agency in an appropriate United States District Court. Id.

§ 1614.408.2

In accordance with these regulations, Plaintiffs pursued their claims within

the grievance system set up by the USPS prior to filing the instant action in

federal district court. Between 1994 and 1996, three of the Plaintiffs (Monreal,

Medina and Figueroa) filed with the USPS individual complaints of race

discrimination and retaliation.3 We will refer to the claims asserted in these
3

(...continued)

Office Business Mail Entry Section by 20 hours per week. 

• In June 1996, Plaintiff Figueroa alleged that he was discriminated against

on April 2, 1996, when his supervisor, Henry Palmer, told him he would

face possible discipline for discrepancies in record-keeping unless he

requested a voluntary transfer to San Antonio, Texas. 

• In July 1996, Plaintiff Monreal alleged that he was retaliated against on

March 22, 1996, when he received an unacceptable merit rating, was denied

a lump sum payment and was not provided with information about the merit

ratings of other postmasters. 

• In September 1996, Plaintiff Medina alleged that he was discriminated and

retaliated against when Area Vice President Craig Wade awarded him an

insufficient pay raise and bonus, and unjustly accused him of failing to

perform his duties. 

- 5 -

complaints as “individual administrative claims.” For over 180 days, the USPS

did not act on any of these complaints.

In June 1996, five of the Plaintiffs (Monreal, Figueroa, Ortiz, Candelaria

and Medina) initiated a class complaint of discrimination on behalf of certain

management-level current and former Hispanic employees of the USPS. See 29

C.F.R. § 1614.204. They first filed a request for counseling, which asserted

individual claims of discrimination and challenged fourteen allegedly

discriminatory agency actions or policies: 1) a discriminatory Corporate

Succession Planning Process; 2) a hostile and retaliatory environment that

deterred class members from complaining about Title VII violations; 3) retaliation

against class members who complained about Title VII violations; 4) inequitable

merit raises, promotions, and bonuses; 5) unjustifiably low evaluations; 6)
4These claims are:

• Plaintiff Monreal alleged that 1) on May 31, 1996, he received a temporary

assignment in Abilene, Texas, which was not an advancement opportunity,

despite the requirement in a settlement agreement that it be one; 2) on May

24, 1996, he was denied a promotion to the position of Postmaster,

(continued...)

- 6 -

inadequate investigation of EEO complaints; 7) non-selection for promotion and

arbitrary demotion; 8) failure to inform class members of advancement

opportunities; 9) excessive discipline; 10) inadequate rewards; 11) humiliation;

12) discontinuation of programs designed for the advancement of class members;

13) failure to honor existing Title VII settlement agreements; and 14) “other”

agency actions “which damage the class members.” 

In September 1996, after they had pursued the required course of

counseling, all seven Plaintiffs, as agents of a class of Hispanic employees, filed a

class administrative complaint, alleging the same fourteen grounds of

discrimination as well as all of the individual claims of discrimination alleged in

the initial counseling request. Six of the Plaintiffs also added additional

individual allegations of discrimination, but these did not include the individual

administrative claims that Medina, Figueroa and Monreal had previously asserted

in their individual complaints. We will refer to the allegations of individual

discrimination that were presented in this class administrative complaint as

“individual class administrative claims.” 4
4

(...continued)

Springfield, Missouri; 3) on June 13, 1996, he was denied a promotion to

the position of Postmaster, Erie, Pennsylvania, on the ground that he

needed additional developmental training and assignments, which he

allegedly had been denied in violation of a pre-existing settlement

agreement; and 4) that a supervisor made a retaliatory threat to fire him on

July 1, 1996, for participating in the class action, verbally abused him on

July 30, 1996, and attempted to intimidate him on August 5, 1996. 

• Plaintiff Figueroa alleged that he was transferred involuntarily and demoted

in retaliation for filing his individual administrative complaint, and that on

June 20, 1996, he was falsely informed that charges were pending against

him as a result of an Inspection Service investigation.

• Plaintiff Ortiz alleged that his supervisors harassed him, removed him from

his position and denied him a merit pay increase. 

• Plaintiff Candelaria alleged that he had been denied a promotion and pay in

violation of a prior settlement agreement, and that he was subjected to

humiliation and abusive language by a manager.

• Plaintiff Sanchez alleged that in 1992 he was discriminatorily rejected for a

position; that in January 1993 he was rejected for a position in favor of an

unqualified employee selected by a USPS vice president; that in July 1995

he was removed from an assignment in favor of an unqualified employee;

that in February 1996 he was wrongfully denied an award for his

accomplishments; and that he had failed to timely file EEO charges on

these claims because of fear of reprisal. 

• Plaintiff Naranjo alleged that he had been deterred from seeking promotion

and advancement to PCES executive ranks by his fear of being “cut down,”

by the lack of an effective EEO program to protect his rights, and by having

been deprived of information necessary to seek advancement. 

- 7 -

The class complaint was transferred to the EEOC as required by 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.204(d). One hundred and eighty days passed without a decision by the

USPS or EEOC on this complaint. On March 19, 1997, believing that they had

exhausted all claims—class and individual—alleged in the class administrative

complaint by waiting 180 days, Plaintiffs filed this action in the District of
5Now 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(3).

- 8 -

Colorado. The complaint essentially made the same allegations, both class and

individual, as the class administrative complaint, except that Plaintiffs Ortiz and

Naranjo both added claims that they had been deterred from bringing Title VII

claims by a hostile and retaliatory environment. The complaint explicitly

excluded, however, the individual claims made by Plaintiffs Monreal, Figueroa

and Medina in their individual administrative complaints, which they were still

pursuing before the USPS.

Shortly after the civil action was filed in the district court, the EEOC

remanded the class administrative complaint, which had been filed with it over six

months earlier, to the USPS to dismiss under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(c).5 Section

1614.107(c) instructs the agency to dismiss a complaint when over 180 days has

passed since the complaint was filed and the complaint is the “basis of a pending

civil action in a United States District Court in which the complainant is a party.”

In May 1997, Plaintiffs first amended their complaint to add allegations

regarding recent instances of discriminatory actions. The First Amended

Complaint also expressly reiterated that the Plaintiffs did not seek relief on any of

the claims which were still pending as individual administrative complaints with
6Nevertheless, it does not appear that any of the facts related to Medina,

Figueroa, and Monreal’s individual administrative claims were included in the

original complaint or First Amended Complaint. All of the facts alleged in the

original and First Amended Complaints related to other Plaintiffs or to instances

of discrimination not included in Medina, Figueroa, and Monreal’s individual

administrative complaints.

- 9 -

the USPS, and to the extent which any similar facts were alleged, they were solely

“for purposes of illustration and clarity.”6

Despite this explicit disclaimer, from May through September 1997, the

USPS issued decisions dismissing the individual administrative complaints of

Plaintiffs Monreal, Medina and Figueroa because they were the “basis of a

pending civil action in a United States District Court in which the complainant is

a party and 180 days have passed since the filing of the formal complaints of

discrimination.” The dismissals were entered even though these three Plaintiffs

had expressly excluded these claims from the class action complaint in federal

district court. 

Plaintiffs Monreal and Figueroa did not appeal the USPS’s dismissal of

their claims. Plaintiff Medina appealed the dismissal of one of his claims to the

EEOC as permitted by § 1614.401(a). In September 1998, the EEOC dismissed

Medina’s appeal on the ground that the claim had been alleged in the district
7Now 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405(b).

- 10 -

court proceeding. Medina did not thereafter request reconsideration, as permitted

by § 1614.407.7

On June 23, 1997, the USPS moved to dismiss the First Amended

Complaint. At a November 1997 hearing on the motion, the district court

indicated its belief that although Plaintiffs had exhausted their administrative

remedies with respect to the class claims in the class administrative complaint,

they had not appropriately exhausted their administrative remedies with respect to

the individual claims in the class administrative complaint. The district court

then dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and proposed Second

Amended Complaint for failure to comply with the “plain statement” requirement

of Rule 8(a), but granted them permission to file a Third Amended Complaint. 

The district court also stayed discovery on class certification at this hearing.

As instructed by the district court, Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended

Complaint. Apparently reacting to the district court’s statements at the hearing

regarding the exhaustion of the individual class administrative claims, Plaintiffs

removed all reference to these claims from the Third Amended Complaint and

asserted only the class claims. The USPS moved to dismiss again. The district

court held a hearing on May 27, 1998. Seeming to contradict its previous

statements implying that the administrative remedies for the individual claims had
- 11 -

not been exhausted and should therefore be removed, it ordered Plaintiffs to file a

Fourth Amended Complaint “with specific allegations [of discrimination] as to

each of the individual plaintiffs.” 

In compliance with this order, on July 2, 1998, Plaintiffs filed their Fourth

Amended Complaint, alleging that the USPS engaged in a pattern or practice of

discrimination against Hispanic employees of specified management-level

positions in regard to their opportunities for advancement and promotion, as well

as a pattern or practice of retaliating against that class of employees when they

protested such discrimination. They also alleged that the USPS’s policies had a

disparate impact on Hispanic employees. The Plaintiffs who had filed individual

administrative claims (Monreal, Medina and Figueroa) specifically asserted those

individual claims, which had been dismissed by the USPS, and all Plaintiffs

asserted their individual class administrative claims, which had also been

dismissed by the USPS.

In October and November 1998, the USPS moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’

individual claims from the Fourth Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust

administrative remedies. On December 4, 1998, the district court held hearings

on the individual claims of three of the Plaintiffs (Candelaria, Medina and

Figueroa) and granted the USPS’s motion to dismiss those claims. The district

court determined that the Plaintiffs who had filed individual administrative
- 12 -

complaints were obligated to appeal the USPS’s dismissal of those complaints to

the EEOC—and seek reconsideration if their appeal was denied—before filing a

civil action. It also determined that the Plaintiffs who had asserted their

individual claims in the class administrative complaint were obligated separately

to file and exhaust individual administrative complaints covering the same claims

of discrimination. Thus, it dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ individual claims for

failure to exhaust. Two years later, on December 1, 2000, the district court

dismissed the individual claims of the four remaining Plaintiffs (Monreal, Ortiz,

Sanchez and Naranjo) on the same grounds. 

Although all individual claims had been dismissed at this point, the district

court did not dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint and ordered Plaintiffs to

move for class certification. On February 15, 2001, the Plaintiffs filed a motion

to certify. On March 4, 2002, without a hearing, the district court denied class

certification and dismissed the complaint because of the Plaintiffs’ failure to

satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.

Plaintiffs timely appealed. We exercise jurisdiction over this appeal

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Because we find that Plaintiffs did exhaust their

individual claims, we REVERSE the district court’s dismissal of these claims and

REMAND for further proceedings. Because we agree with the district court that
- 13 -

Plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23, we AFFIRM its denial of

class certification.

II. INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS

After the filing of the Fourth Amended Complaint, which included the

individual claims that the Plaintiffs had asserted in their individual administrative

complaints and the individual claims that the Plaintiffs had asserted in the class

administrative complaint, the USPS moved to dismiss all of the individual claims

for Plaintiffs’ respective failures to exhaust administrative remedies. The district

court treated the individual administrative claims differently from the individual

class administrative claims, but dismissed all of them for failure to exhaust.

We agree with the parties that the district court’s treatment of the

individual administrative claims was erroneous and must be reversed. We find

that Plaintiffs also exhausted their individual class administrative claims and

reverse on this issue as well.

A. Individual Administrative Claims

The district court dismissed the individual administrative claims that three

of the Plaintiffs (Figueroa, Medina and Monreal) added as part of the Fourth

Amended Complaint after the USPS had dismissed the claims on the basis that
- 14 -

180 days had passed since their filing and the claims were part of a pending civil

action. The district court held that Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their

administrative remedies because they did not appeal the USPS’s dismissal of their

claims or, if they had appealed (as Medina had), because they did not ask for

reconsideration after the appeal had been denied.

The parties agree that the district court’s conclusion that these Plaintiffs

had failed to exhaust these claims was erroneous. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408(a),

a complainant may file an action in federal court after receiving the agency’s final

decision on an administrative complaint. In this case, the dismissals were clearly

labeled “Final Agency Decision,” thus triggering Plaintiffs’ rights to file civil

actions. Although complainants have the option to appeal an agency’s dismissal

to the EEOC, id. § 1614.401(a), and to request reconsideration if their appeal is

denied, id. § 1614.407(b), neither action is required for exhaustion purposes by

§ 1614.408(a). Thus, the individual administrative claims of Monreal, Medina

and Figueroa which were asserted in the Fourth Amended Complaint should not

have been dismissed for lack of exhaustion.

Nevertheless, the USPS contends that some of these claims should be

dismissed because they were not timely filed in the district court. A complainant

must file a civil action within 90 days of receipt of a final decision. 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.408(a). The claims asserted in Medina’s second individual administrative
- 15 -

complaint and Figueroa’s individual administrative complaints were dismissed by

the USPS in May 1997, and the Plaintiffs did not add these claims to the civil

action until the Fourth Amended Complaint in July 1998. Thus, argues the USPS,

these claims did not satisfy the 90-day deadline.

We agree with Plaintiffs that this argument has been waived. See 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.604(c) (providing that the “time limits in [part 1614] are subject to waiver,

estoppel and equitable tolling”); Harms v. Internal Revenue Serv., 321 F.3d 1001,

1006 (10th Cir. 2003) (“The requirement that a plaintiff file a timely civil action

after the disposition of an individual EEO complaint is not a jurisdictional

requirement, but rather is subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.”). 

Nowhere in the record below does the USPS raise the argument that these claims

are time-barred. In fact, the USPS dismissed the claims for the very reason that

the claims had been included in the original March 1997 complaint filed in the

district court. Now, on appeal, the USPS tries to argue for the first time that the

claims were not added until the Fourth Amended Complaint. Generally, a

“‘federal appellate court does not consider an issue not passed upon below,’” see

Walker v. Mather, 959 F.2d 894, 896 (10th Cir. 1992) (quoting Singleton v.

Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 120 (1976)), and we decline to do so now. The USPS has

waived any defense based on the untimely filing of Plaintiff Figueroa and
- 16 -

Plaintiff Medina’s claims in district court. We reverse and remand these claims

for further proceedings.

B. Individual Class Administrative Claims

The district court also dismissed the individual claims of the Plaintiffs that

were originally asserted in the class administrative complaint. It reasoned that

individual claims of discrimination could not be exhausted through presentation

in a class administrative complaint.

We conclude that individual allegations of discrimination can be exhausted

through a class administrative complaint and accordingly reverse the district

court’s judgment. Although the EEOC regulations do address individual and class

complaints in separate sections, see 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106 (1997) (“Individual

complaints”); id. § 1614.204 (“Class complaints”), we find that they do not

mandate exclusive presentation of individual claims of discrimination in

individual complaints. Section 1614.408, which governs the filing of civil actions

following administrative complaints, provides:

A complainant who has filed an individual complaint, an agent who has

filed a class complaint or a claimant who has filed a claim for individual

relief pursuant to a class complaint is authorized under title VII, the ADEA

and the Rehabilitation Act to file a civil action in an appropriate United

States District Court:

1. Within 90 days of receipt of the final decision on an individual or

class complaint if no appeal has been filed;
8We reject Plaintiffs’ argument that they were “claimant[s] who ha[ve] filed

[] claim[s] for individual relief pursuant to a class complaint.” We believe the

“claimants” identified in § 1614.408 are persons identified in § 1614.204(l)(3), a

particular provision in the regulation governing class complaints. This provision

allows “claimants” to assert claims for individual relief after an agency finding of

class-wide discrimination. It provides that:

When discrimination is found in the final [agency] decision and a class

member believes that he or she is entitled to individual relief, the class

member may file a written claim with the head of the agency or its EEO

Director within 30 days of receipt of notification by the agency of its final

(continued...)

- 17 -

2. After 180 days from the date of filing an individual or class

complaint if an appeal has not been filed and a final decision has not

been issued;

3. Within 90 days of receipt of the Commission’s final decision on an

appeal; or

4. After 180 days from the date of filing an appeal with the Commission

if there has been no final decision by the Commission.

29 C.F.R. § 1614.408.

Based on this section, we can see that the following persons are authorized

to file civil actions in United States District Court within the prescribed time

periods: 1) “a complainant who has filed an individual complaint”; 2) “an agent

who has filed a class complaint”; and 3) “a claimant who has filed a claim for

individual relief pursuant to a class complaint.” Id. (emphasis added).

We find that, as “agent[s] who ha[ve] filed a class complaint,” Plaintiffs

were permitted to assert their individual claims in this civil action.8 Section
8

(...continued)

decision. The claim must include a specific, detailed showing that the

claimant is a class member who was affected by a personnel action or

matter resulting from the discriminatory policy or practice, and that this

discriminatory action took place within the period of time for which the

agency found class-wide discrimination in its final decision. . . . The

agency shall issue a final decision on each such claim within 90 days of

filing. Such decision must include a notice of the right to file an appeal or

a civil action in accordance with subpart D of this part and the applicable

time limits.

Id. § 1614.204(l)(3) (emphasis added). 

The use of the particular words “claimant” and “individual relief” links this

provision to the language in § 1614.408. Additionally, § 1614.204(l)(3)

specifically notes that such a “claimant” may bring a civil action if his claim is

denied. Thus, when § 1614.408 refers to the “claimant[s] who ha[ve] filed []

claim[s] for individual relief pursuant to a class complaint,” we believe it refers

back to this specific group of people identified in § 1614.204(l)(3).

In this case, because there was no agency finding of class-wide

discrimination and Plaintiffs did not file claims of individual relief pursuant to

that finding as permitted by § 1614.204(l)(3), they are not the “claimants”

identified in § 1614.408, and thus not entitled to bring a civil action as such.

- 18 -

1614.204(a)(3) defines a class agent as “a class member who acts for the class

during the processing of the class complaint.” Each of the Plaintiffs in this case

were identified as agents of the class in the Pre-Complaint Request for

Counseling and/or the Class Administrative Complaint. The USPS argues,

however, that, as agents of a class, Plaintiffs were permitted to file a civil action

alleging class claims only. Individual claims, the USPS argues, must have been
- 19 -

presented separately to the USPS in individual complaints and exhausted before

they could be presented in a civil action.

This argument fails for two reasons. First, the regulations expressly

contemplate the filing and processing of individual claims through a class

administrative complaint. Subsection (l) of the “Class complaints” section

provides that:

When class-wide discrimination is not found, but it is found that the class

agent is a victim of discrimination, § 1614.501 [Remedies and relief] shall

apply. The agency shall also, within 60 days of the issuance of the final

decision finding no class-wide discrimination, issue the acknowledgment of

receipt of an individual complaint as required by [the subsection governing

individual complaints] and process in accordance with the provisions of

subpart A of this part, each individual complaint that was subsumed into

the class complaint.

Id. § 1614.204(l)(2). Thus, if no class-wide discrimination is found, this section

instructs that any individual complaint by a class agent subsumed within the class

complaint be processed under the section dealing with individual complaints. In

this case, however, the individual complaints were never so processed because the

agency did not make a finding that there had been no class-wide discrimination. 

Plaintiffs should not be prejudiced by the agency’s particular disposition of the

class proceeding which, in any event, by its dismissal of the proceeding

effectively exhausted the subsumed individual agent claims as well.

The “Class complaints” section also requires the administrative judge

adjudicating the complaint to make findings in his report on “systemic relief for
- 20 -

the class and any individual relief, where appropriate, with regard to the

personnel action or matter that gave rise to the complaint.” Id. § 1614.204(i)(1). 

If the judge “finds no class relief appropriate,” he is instructed to “determine if a

finding of individual discrimination is warranted and, if so, [to] recommend

appropriate relief.” Id. § 1614.204(i)(2). This subsection also indicates that the

EEOC anticipates that allegations of individual discrimination warranting relief

may be presented through a class complaint. Thus, the regulations support the

proposition that individual claims may be exhausted through a class

administrative complaint.

We also find that the policies underlying the requirement of

exhaustion—“protecting administrative agency authority and promoting judicial

efficiency”—are satisfied in this case. McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140, 145

(1992), superseded by statute on other grounds. First, the administrative

authority of the EEOC and the USPS are sufficiently protected. Because the

individual claims were presented as such in the class complaint, the agency was

fully on notice of them. Nevertheless, it chose not to investigate. 

Although we have held that class claims cannot be exhausted through an

individual complaint, Belhomme v. Widnall, 127 F.3d 1214, 1217 (10th Cir.

1997); Gulley v. Orr, 905 F.2d 1383, 1384-85 (10th Cir. 1990), that situation is

distinct from the one presented here. In Belhomme, we reasoned that a class
- 21 -

claim could not be exhausted through an individual complaint because the agency

was not sufficiently notified of the complainant’s intent to raise class allegations

through his filing of an individual complaint. See Belhomme, 127 F.3d at 1217

(“On Mr. Belhomme’s claim for class-action status under Title VII, the district

court properly dismissed the issue because Mr. Belhomme failed to raise the claim

at any point in the administrative process before the Air Force or EEOC.”)

(emphasis added). The same reasoning does not apply in this case. Plaintiffs

clearly made claims of individual discrimination within the class complaint, as

indeed they were required to do in order to demonstrate their qualification to

serve as class representatives. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.204(a)(2)(iii) (requiring that

class agents’ claims be typical of those of the class). The USPS cannot contend

that it was unaware that Plaintiffs had individual complaints of discrimination. 

See Gulley, 905 F.2d at 1384 (observing that the class administrative complaint

was designed as a “mechanism . . . through which an individual could assert class

claims in the context of his own individual discrimination claims”). It had ample

notice and opportunity to adjudicate these individual claims itself and did not do

so within the prescribed time period.

The policy of judicial efficiency also favors Plaintiffs. Requiring class

agents to file both a class complaint and separate individual complaints would be

a waste of time when all allegations can be presented together in a class
9Consider, for instance, a complainant who filed an individual complaint of

discrimination and a class complaint of discrimination on the same

day—January 1, 2003. Assuming that the agency acts on his individual complaint

on February 1, 2003, the complainant would be required to file his civil action

based on that individual complaint within 90 days, or no later than May 2, 2003. 

With respect to his class complaint, however, assume the agency takes no

action. The complainant is required to wait 180 days from the date of the filing

of his class complaint—until July 1, 2003, until he may file a civil action. Thus,

there is no window of time during which the complainant could simultaneously

file a civil action containing both his individual and class claims.

- 22 -

complaint. Further, requiring separate exhaustion of the class allegations and the

class agent’s individual allegations that form the basis of the class allegations

could create conflicting deadlines for filing a civil action such that all the

deadlines could not be satisfied. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.408 (requiring that the

complainant wait at least 180 days for a decision from the agency before filing a

civil action and requiring that such an action be filed within 90 days of a final

decision).9

 For these reasons, we conclude that Plaintiffs exhausted their

individual claims through presentation in the class complaint and reverse and

remand these claims to the district court.

III. CLASS CERTIFICATION

Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint asserts discriminatory pattern-orpractice and disparate impact claims on behalf of 
- 23 -

the class of all Hispanic persons who, at the time the discrimination

occurred, were employees of the U.S. Postal Service as Postmasters (all

levels) or as Level EAS 15 and up through [Postal Career Executive

Service] level, who have suffered from race discrimination with respect to

the terms and conditions of their employment, or promotions, or retaliation,

from May 5, 1996, or after.

The Complaint asserts that this class of employees was subjected to: 1)

discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment, including but not

limited to: unjust promotion practices, inequity in compensation, unjust

evaluations, improper job shifting and assignments, unjust discipline, underrecognition of contributions, disrespectful treatment of the person, inequity in

training/information for advancement, and other terms and conditions of work; 2)

the creation of a continuing hostile and retaliatory working environment that is so

offensive and threatening as to actually deter Hispanic Postmasters and managers

from seeking advancement, and from making or supporting Title VII charges; and

3) the infliction of continuing and serial retaliation on Hispanic Postmasters and

managers who make or support Title VII charges. According to the Complaint,

these policies were “fostered, maintained, participated in, condoned, ratified,

and/or approved by officers and top officials of the Postal Service including

without limitation, Marvin Runyon, Michael Coughlin, William Henderson,

Charles Kernan, and Craig Wade.”

In support of these claims, the Fourth Amended Complaint cites Postal

Service statistics to show that Hispanics constitute a proportionately lower
- 24 -

number of managers than do whites. Plaintiffs also allege that the USPS has

“received numerous complaints of discrimination and retaliation” by class

members and offer ninety-three declarations of discrimination that they obtained

from potential class members through preliminary investigation.

Based on these claims, the Plaintiffs request the following relief:

compensatory damages, including but not limited to those for emotional suffering;

payment for lost income and benefits, including front and back pay; where

appropriate, reinstatement or, in the alternative, front pay; appropriate declaratory

and/or injunctive relief, including final injunctive relief; pre-judgment and postjudgment interest at the highest lawful rate; attorney and expert witness fees and

costs; and such further relief as justice may require. 

The district court held that Plaintiffs’ class allegations failed in three ways:

1) they made reference to the merits of the case in defining the class; 2) they

failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2); and 3) they did

not satisfy any of the requirements of Rule 23(b). “The decision to grant or deny

certification of a class belongs within the discretion of the trial court.” Reed v.

Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1988). Because we find that Plaintiffs

failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b), we conclude that the court did not
10We need not focus on the “class definition” issue because we can uphold

the district court’s rulings on the basis of its Rule 23(b) analysis.

- 25 -

abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and

dismissing these claims.10

To succeed on a motion for class certification, Plaintiffs must satisfy at

least one subsection of Rule 23(b). In this case, Plaintiffs contend that they

satisfy subsections (b)(2) and (b)(3). Under these sections,

An action may be maintained as a class action if the prerequisites of

subdivision (a) are satisfied, and in addition:

. . .

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final

injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to

the class as a whole; or

(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the

members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only

individual members, and that a class action is superior to other

available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the

controversy. The matters pertinent to the findings include: (A) the

interest of members of the class in individually controlling the

prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature

of any litigation concerning the controversy already commenced by

or against members of the class; (C) the desirability or undesirability

of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum;

(D) the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of a

class action.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Even if we assume that the “prerequisites of subsection (a)

are satisfied,” we conclude that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the requirements

of Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). 
- 26 -

Under Rule 23(b)(2), “the party opposing the class [must] ha[ve] acted or

refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect

to the class as a whole.” The district court rejected the applicability of this

section because Plaintiffs failed to point to any particular policy that the USPS

applied to the entire class and because any claim for injunctive or declaratory

relief that Plaintiffs asserted was subsidiary to their claim for damages.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. First, we agree

that Plaintiffs simply have not articulated a policy—besides generalized noncompliance with Title VII—that could be the subject of injunctive or declaratory

relief, nor does the Fourth Amended Complaint request any specific relief of this

type. The Fourth Amended Complaint only generally asks for “appropriate

declaratory and/or injunctive relief, including final injunctive relief.” Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) requires that injunctions be “specific in terms” and

“describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other

document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” Based on the breadth of the

discriminatory actions alleged by Plaintiffs, we cannot conceive of an injunction

that would satisfy these requirements. See Keyes v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, Denver,

Colo., 895 F.2d 659, 668 & n.5 (10th Cir. 1990) (“[G]enerally, injunctions simply

requiring the defendant to obey the law are too vague [to satisfy Rule 65].”)
11We do not suggest that a plaintiff must set forth in the pleadings the

requested injunction to the specificity required by Rule 65. However, the breadth

and discontinuity of the acts of discrimination alleged here reveal how ill-suited a

class-wide injunction would be that would satisfy the requirements of Rule 65.

- 27 -

(striking injunction prohibiting defendants “from discriminating on the basis of

race, color or ethnicity in the operation of the school system” and directing

defendants “to use their expertise and resources to comply with the constitutional

requirement of equal education opportunity for all who are entitled to the benefits

of public education in Denver, Colorado”).11

The district court also refused to certify a (b)(2) class because it found that

the relief sought was primarily monetary damages. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

advisory committee’s note (“[Subdivision (b)(2)] does not extend to cases in

which the appropriate final relief relates exclusively or predominantly to money

damages.”). Because the variety of claims asserted in the Complaint do not lend

themselves to the formulation of appropriate class-wide injunctive or declaratory

relief and because it is clear from the pleadings here that the primary relief sought

is monetary damages, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

certification on this ground. See Boughton v. Cotter Corp., 65 F.3d 823, 827

(10th Cir. 1995). 

The district court also found that Plaintiffs did not satisfy the requirements

of 23(b)(3). Class actions under (b)(3) must have “questions of law or fact
- 28 -

common to the members of the class [that] predominate over any questions

affecting only individual members” and must be “superior to other available

methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.”

In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege any common issues of fact, and the

only common issue of law they assert is a violation of Title VII. The generality

of the common issue that they allege is demonstrated by their own argument in

their appellants’ brief that the “Complaint clearly asserts, at a minimum, that

during the class period the USPS had a policy, imposed or allowed at the highest

levels of management to intentionally discriminate against Hispanics employed at

particular levels of management structure in connection with their advancement

and promotion.” We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to certify Plaintiffs’ proposed class under Rule 23(b)(3).

Our conclusion that Plaintiffs do not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance

criterion is bolstered by a consideration of the district court’s alternative ruling on

Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. In assessing whether Plaintiffs had

satisfied the lower standard of commonality required by Rule 23(a), see Amchem

Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623-24 (1997) (describing the

predominance criterion of Rule 23(b)(3) as “far more demanding” that the Rule

23(a) commonality requirement), the district court observed 

Plaintiffs have not identified any specific policy of the Defendant

purportedly responsible for the alleged discrimination. Nor have Plaintiffs
12Plaintiffs urge us to consider a “hybrid” certification whereby the liability

stage might be certified for class treatment under Rule 23(b)(2) even if the

damages stage does not qualify for such treatment. See Robinson v. Metro-North

Commuter R.R., 267 F.3d 147, 167-69 (2d Cir. 2001). Compare Lemon v. Int’l

Union of Operating Engr’s, Local No. 139, AFL-CIO, 216 F.3d 577, 581 (7th

(continued...)

- 29 -

established any common policy that was applied to the entire class in the

same way. To the contrary, despite the “pattern and practice”

characterization of their claim, Plaintiffs have not identified any

overarching policy which commonly affects the class members. Indeed, no

policy of the Defendant purportedly responsible for the discrimination

alleged has been articulated with any degree of specificity. Instead,

Plaintiffs merely speculate that their particularized claims are the result of

a pattern and practice discrimination based upon their national origin.

Although we do not rest our decision upon Rule 23(a), cases that interpret

that the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a) illustrate the instant Plaintiffs’

inability to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s “far more demanding” requirement that

common issues predominate.

The principal Supreme Court case on Rule 23(a) commonality is General

Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (holding that a Mexican-American

employee who was asserting a failure-to-promote claim could not represent

Mexican-American applicants who had failure-to-hire claims). The myriad

discriminatory acts that Plaintiffs allege (e.g., failure to promote, failure to train,

unequal pay, disrespectful treatment, etc.) each require independent legal analysis,

and similarly challenge the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) if not also

the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a).12
12(...continued)

Cir. 2000) and Jefferson v. Ingersoll Int’l Inc., 195 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999)

with Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 420-22 (5th Cir. 1998). We

do not need to rule on a hybrid possibility because in the instant case, the liability

stage does not satisfy either Rules 23(b)(2) or 23(b)(3). The district court’s

ruling that plaintiffs did not allege a sufficient policy, practice or pattern of

discrimination to warrant class treatment for liability determination is not an

abuse of discretion.

- 30 -

Granting or denying class certification is a highly fact-intensive matter of

practicality. See J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1289 (10th Cir.

1999); Reed v. Bowen, 849 F.2d 1307, 1309 (10th Cir. 1988) (“Whether a case

should be allowed to proceed as a class action involves intensely practical

considerations, most of which are purely factual or fact-intensive. Each case must

be decided on its own facts, on the basis of ‘practicalities and prudential

considerations.’”) (citing United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S.

388, 402-03, 406 n.11 (1980)). As a practical matter, we cannot envision how a

class action trial would proceed in this case. The prima facie case for a failureto-promote claim is completely different than that for a hostile environment claim

or a retaliation claim, yet Plaintiffs allege all of these. There is simply no

common issue that predominates with respect to this class, nor does Plaintiff

identify one. Thus, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

in denying certification under Rule 23(b)(3).
- 31 -

Finally, Plaintiffs challenge the district court’s refusal to allow them

discovery on class certification issues. We review the district court’s decision for

an abuse of discretion. Soma Med. Int’l v. Standard Chartered Bank, 196 F.3d

1292, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999).

Discovery in this case was initially stayed over Plaintiffs’ objection in

November 1997, and Plaintiffs’ motions to lift the stay were denied. Plaintiffs’

argument that this decision constituted an abuse of discretion is based on their

belief that more statistical or anecdotal evidence could have resulted in class

certification. As discussed above, however, Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended

Complaint did not fail for lack of statistical evidence, but for failure to identify

one or more specific USPS policies that were discriminatory toward or imposed a

common disparate impact on the proposed class. Thus, the district court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for discovery.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs’ individual claims were all properly exhausted. We REVERSE

and REMAND them to the district court for further proceedings on the individual

claims. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to certify a class

because Plaintiffs’ allegations do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2) or
- 32 -

(b)(3), nor did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to lift the stay on

discovery. Therefore, its denial of class certification is AFFIRMED.