## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 3446 S ALL Y A. R ANDA LL an d R ONA C. P EPMEIE R, i nd i vi du al l y a nd o n behal fo fal l o ther s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, P la intif fs-A pp ella nts, an d
K AR EN G O V ERNO R an d B ARBA RA J ONES,

P roposed Inte rve ning Plaintif fs /A ppell ants ,
v. R OLLS -R OYCE C OR PO RA T I ON, e tal ., D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apo lisDiv isi on. No . 1:0 6-cv-86 0-SEB-WGH

— Sarah E vansBarker, Judge

. A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 16, 2011

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 30, 2011

Befo re P OSNER, F LA UM, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . T h e plai nti ff s i n thi s cl ass act i on su it on beh alfof m ore tha n 50 0 fem ale em p loyees of a

### 2 N o. 10

- 3446 Rol l s- Royce pl ant i n I nd i ana that m an u f actur es ai rcr aft, i nd ustr i al, and m ar i ne eng i nes a pp ealfro m the denial of cl ass cer ti fica tion and the s ubsequent g ra nt o fRol l sRo y ce ’ s m o ti o n f o r s um m ar y j udg m en t. ( W e refer to the defe nd ants, al l o fwh i ch ar e affi l i ate d c or pora ti ons, co l l ecti vel y a s “ Rol l s- Royce
. ”) T he pl ai nti ff s char ge Rol l s- Royce wi ths ex di sc r im i na ti o n, i n v i o l at i o n o fTi tl e VI Ia nd the Eq ual Pay A ct, in p ayi ng the m em ber s ofthe cl ass l ess than com parabl e m al e em plo yee s byse tti ng the bas e pay of w om en em plo yee s i n the cl ass m em ber s’ com pensati on c a t e g o r i e s b e l o w th a to fma l e e mp l o y e e s i n t he s a me c at eg or ies , an d in d en yin g t h em p ro m ot ion s t h ey w ou ld have re cei ved had they bee n m en. There ar e o thercl ai m s, w hi ch w e’ l l notdi scuss, i nstea d rel yi ng o n the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s co gent anal ys is of them i n thr ee opi ni ons: 20 10 W L 98748 4 ( N
. D. I nd

. M ar . 12 , 20 10); 20 10 W L 19482 22 ( N. D. I n d

. Ma y 1 3 , 2 0 1 0 ) ; 74 2 F
. S u p p . 2 d 9 74 ( N. D. I nd

. 2010). To appeala dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fcl ass cer ti fi cati on, as the pl ai nti ff s a re doi ng i n thi s ca se, i s a r i skyst ra teg y, especi al l y when, as i n thi s ca se, the cl ass i s pro posed to be cer ti fi ed und erRu le 23(b) ( 2) o fthe ci vi l r ule s. U nd erthat rul e, wh i ch go ver ns cl ass act i ons i n w hi ch “fi nal i nj uncti ve re l i efo r cor re sponding decl ar ato ryr eli efi s a pp ro pri ate re spec t i ngthe c l a s s a s a wh o l e , ” n o t i c e t o u nn a med c l ass m em bers i s o pti onal

. Rule 23 ( c) ( 2) ( A )
. The co nsequence i s th ati fthe de ni alo fc er ti fi ca tion is r ev er se d b utthe dec i si o n o n th e m er i ts , adv er se to th e cl as s, i s affi r m ed, the c l a i ms o fth e u n n a me d me mb e r s , a s o fth e n a me d me mber s, wil l be bar re d unles s ( see Coope rv. Fe de r al Re s e r ve Bank, 467 U
. S. 867, 87 8 -8 0 ( 1984 )) their clai m s are d iss im ilar to th os e o f th e n am ed p lain tiffs

. B o lin v . Sears,N o. 10

- 3446 3 Roeb uc k & C o. , 231 F.3d 97 0, 97 5-7 6 (5 th C ir. 20 00 ); B aby N eal ex rel. Ka nter v . Ca sey, 43 F.3d 48, 58-59 ( 3d Cir. 1994); G re enev. Los A ngele s U nifi ed Sc hoo l D is t. , 246 F. 3d 67 4 (9 th Cir
. 2000 ) ( unp ubl i shed). Even an unnam ed cl ass m em ber w h o has a m uc h stron ger clai m than the n am ed plaintiff s m ay be h urt by c e rtification, bec au se a su bseq ue nt cou rt m ay ass um e that c er ti fi cati on would have been deni ed had th e n am ed p lain tiff’s cla im s n ot be en ty p ica l of th os e o f all, o r a tl e a s t th e va s tmaj o r i t y , o fth e u n n a me d c l a s s me mb er s. Inco n t r a st, w h en th e c las s is ce rt ified u n d er R u le 23(b)(3), w hich govern s class actions i n w hich m one tary re l i ef i s the pri m ar y re l i ef sought, the unnam ed cl ass m embe r s m us t be no ti fi ed an d a l l o wed t o o pt o uto fthe c l a s s ac tio n, Ru le 2 3(c )(2) (B ); E is en v. C arli sl e & Jacquel in , 417 U .S. 15 6, 17 6 ( 1974 ) , wh i ch gi ves them a chance t o l i ti gat e thei r cl ai m s i n a ne w sui t. Yet thos e w h o do not o pt o utwi l l b e bo und b y the j udg m en t i n th e cl as s ac ti o n. N agel v. A D M Inves tor Service s, Inc. , 21 7 F
. 3d 436, 44 2 (7t h C ir. 2 0 0 0 ); A m ati v. C ity of Wood st ock, 17 6 F
. 3d 952, 957 (7th Cir. 1999). Con ve r se l y , a de f en dan t co nfi den t o fpr ev ai l i ngo n the m er i ts w i l l o ften b e wel l advi sed notto o p p os e cert i fi cat i o n, th o u g h th e r e i s s o me r i s k i n d o i n g s o ( s o p e r h a p s we shoul d say a defendant utte rly co nfi den t o f wi nni ng o n the m erits w ou ld be w ell ad vised not to op p ose certifi cation ). Ro l l s- Ro y ce i s co nfi den t of pr ev ai l i ngo n the mer i ts , a nd righ tl y s o as w e’ l l se e, but f ol l ows the l aw yer ’ s r efl exi ve str ate gy ofdenyi ng wh ate verthe opponent as ser ts. Certi fi cati on a nd m er i ts cannot al w ays be separ ate d. For exam ple , cer ti fi cati on m ay be denie d b ecause th e n am ed pla i nti ff’ s cl ai m i s a typi calo fthe cl ai m s of th e other

### 4 N o. 10

- 3446

m em bers of the class, and i t m ay be atyp ica l bec au se of a p os sib ly c om p let e d efe n se to h is c laim th at m ay n ot ap p ly to c l ai m s o fthe othe r c l as s m embe r s, a s i n CE D e s ign Lim i t e d v
. Ki ng Arc hi t e ct ural M e t al s , Inc . , No
. 1 0

- 1 8 5 0 , 2 011 W L 93890 0, at *4 -6 (7th Cir

. M ar . 18 , 20 11)
. A nd then the o nl y effect i fthe denia l o fcer ti fi cati on i s uphel d m ay be the subst i tuti on, i n a ne w cl ass act i on s uit, o fano ther cl as s m embe r f o r the na m ed pl aint i ffi n the o l d s ui t, a nd i n that eve nt the defendant’s vi ctory wil l be Pyrrhi c; substi tuti on i s a n i ssue i n thi s ca se, as we’l l se e. Bu t a pl ai nti ff’ s vic to ryi n ove rturni ng the deni alo f c er tific at ion m ay be eq u ally P yr rh ic if h e p re va ils on ly b y oc c lu d in g s ign ifica n t d iffer en c es be tw ee n h is c laim a nd tha to fo the r c l a s s me mbe rs by i ns i s t i ngo n i t s ty pi cal i ty, thus m aki ng i t m or e diffi cul t f or unna m ed cla ss m em be r s to c o nv i nc e a co ur t th atthe i r o wn cl ai m s are str onge r than hi s ( i m ply in g th at hi s i s a typi cal ) and so s h o u l d n o tb e b a r r e d b y a j u d g me n ta g a i n s th i m. W e’ l l di sc us s th e m er i ts a nd the n c er ti fi ca ti o n. Rol l s- Royce deter m i nes the co m pensati on o fi ts em plo yees ( al l i ts em plo yee s, but thi s ca se conc er n s j ust those ex em p t from th e m inim um -w age an d m ax im um -hou rs provi si ons ofthe Fai r Labor S tandards Act) i n two ste ps. The fi rs t i s t o est abl i sh a bro ad pay r ange forea ch cl ass o fe mp l o y e e s w h o m i td e e ms o fe q u a l v a l ue t o th e c o mpany. W e’ l l cal l thes e br oad ra nges “co m pensati on ca teg ori es. ” The cl ass i s s pread o verfi ve ofthes e ca teg or i es. The seco nd st ep, wh i ch i s ba sed o n R olls- Royce ’ s r eco gn i t i o n th a ti tmu s tme e tc o mp e t i t i o n fr o m o th e r e mplo yer s for t he em plo yee s i t wants t o hi re o r re tai n, i s t oN o. 10

- 3446 5

cre ate withi n eac h br oad range a narr ower r ange base d on preva i l i ng m ar ket w age s f or each of the j obs in q u esti on

— “prev ai l i ng m ar ke t wages” m eani ng wages off er ed b y c om p et in g e m p loy er s. B ec au se ofth es e ra n ge s w ith in ra n ge s, th e c las s t h at th e p lain tiffs w an t c er tifie d sp ra w ls o ve r t wenty di ff er en t co m pen sa ti o n g r ade s, i nc l udi ng s u p e r v i s o r y a n d n o n s u p e r v i s o r y p o s i t i o n s a n d e n c o mpassi ng st ar ti ng sa l ar i es ra ngi ng fro m $4 0, 050 to $190 , 750. Thu s, w hi l e in theor y the j obs withi n eac h com pensati on ca t e g o r y a r e o fe q u a l v a l u e t o th e c o mpa n y ( we i m ag i ne th at R olls -R oy c e’s m ot ive fo r sa yin g t h is

— ther eby unw i tti ngl y a rm i ng i ts advers ar i es i n thi s ca se

— i s t o i m prove empl o y ee mor al e byr ea ss ur i nge ac h e m pl o y ee th athe or she i s as goo d a s othe rs i n the s am e c om pensati on cate gor y e ven if p aid l ess than they) , the j obs ar e no t equa lly val ued by the m ar ket

. Reco gni zi ng tha t i t there

fore m us t pa y som e em p loyees i n eac h ca tego ry m ore than o th ers, Rol l s- Royce speci fi es diff er ent l eve l s o fbas e pay f ordiffer ent j obs withi n a c ate gor y a nd ( further com p li catin g com p arison across j obs) au th o r iz es su p ervis or s to m ake ad hoc pay adj ustm ents; not abl y, ea ch em plo yee i s e l i gibl e t o obt ai n a per cen ta ge o fhi s ba se p a y a s a d d i t i o n a l c o mpe n s a t i o n, th e p e r c e n t a g e b e i ng base d on an e val uati on of t h e em plo yee ’ s per f or m ance by h is sup erior. I n 2 0 0 3 , th e y e a r b e f o r e th e b e g i n n i n go fth e c o mpl a i nt p eriod, the averag e base p a y ( t h a t i s, th e base p ay before th e p er for m an c e a d d -on j u st n ot ed ) ofm a l e e m p loy ee s in th e twe nt y c o m pen sa ti o n g r ade s was abo ut5 pe r ce nt hi gherthan that ofthe w om en i n thos e g ra d es . That di ff e r e nt i a l p e r s i s t e d thr o ugho utthe co m pl a i ntp e r i o d.

### 6 N o. 10

- 3446 A nd bec ause the per f or m ance a dj ustm ents w er e ca l cul ate d as p er centag es ofbas e pay, bas e pay i nfl uenced tot alpay thro ughout the per i od, tho ugh other adj ustm ents m ay have dil uted that i nfl uence o r for t h at m att erel i m i nated i t. Of cour se i fthe w om en o utperf or m ed the m en, they m i ght cat ch up and even e xceed them i n pay, j ust by vir tu e o f th e p er f o r m an c e a d j u st m en t. Y et th ey w ou ld exceed the m by l ess than i fthei r base pay had been equa l t o the men’ s atthe o ut se t. S uppo se thati n y ea r o ne W ’ s pay ( afterper f or m ance adj ustm ent) i s $ 90, 000, and so thi s be com es her base pay i n yea r tw o. M ’ s p ay i s $ 100, 000 in y earo ne . I n y ea r t wo W r ec ei ve s a 20

- per ce ntpe r f orm an c e b on u s a n d M on ly a 5-p er c en t b o n u s. A s a res u lt W ’s pay n ow exc eed s M ’s

— i t i s $ 108, 000 to hi s $ 105, 000. Bu t i fW ’ s base pay in yeartw o had been e qual to M ’ s, her se co nd- y ea r pa y woul d ha ve b ee n $ 120, 00 0, a nd s o s he w as hurt b y hav i ng star ted fro m a l ower ba se

— th e d if

f er en ce i n y ea r - o ne b as e payb einga tt r ibut ab l e, a cc o r di ng to th e p lain tiffs , to se x d isc rim in at ion
. I fthe di ff er en ce was a tt r ibut ab l e to se x di sc r i m i na ti o n, Rol l s- Royce ’ s f ai l ure to el i m i nate the di ff er ence w oul d, by p er p et u at in g d isc rim in at ion , viola te T itle V II. Bazem o re v. Fr i day, 4 78 U. S
. 3 85 , 3 94

- 96 ( 19 86 ) ( co nc ur r i ngo pi ni on

—j oin ed , ho w ev er , by a l l t h e Ju st ice s); H i l de b r andt v. Illin o is D ep’t o

f Na tura l R esou rces , 34 7 F
. 3d 1014, 10 25- 29 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03 ); G o odwi n v . Ge ne r al M ot ors Corp. , 27 5 F
. 3 d 1 0 0 5 , 1 0 0 9

- 1 0 ( 1 0 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 )
. I ti s t r u e t h a tt h e p r i ma f ac i e ca se f o r a v i o l at i o n o fthe Equa l Pa y Act, whi chthe pla i nti ff s al so al l ege , does notr equi re pro ofo fdi scr i m i nati on, bu t on l y o funequal pay f or“e qual w or k o n j obs th e per f o r m an ce o fwhi chr equi r es e qua l ski l l, e ff o r t, a ndN o. 10

- 3446 7

re sponsibi l i ty, and w hic h ar e per f or m ed und ersi m i l ar w or ki ng co nd i ti ons. ” 2 9 U.S
. C. § 2 06( d)( 1) ; se e Fal l on v. Il li nois , 8 82 F
. 2d 12 06 , 1 21 3- 14 ( 7th C ir. 19 89 )
. Butthe pla i nti ff s hav e be en unabl e t o i den tify any m al e work er w ho s ati sfi ed the str i n ge n t s tatutor y r equi re m ent o f equal ity o f job sk i l l s, et c. , and so the dist ri ct j ud ge w as r i g ht to g r an t su m m ar y j udg m en t f o r Ro l l s- Ro y ce on the E q u a l P a y A c tc l a i m. Ro l l s- Ro y ce ’ s ex per t, Be r na r d R. S i sk i n, s ho t do wn th e p lain tiff’s th eo ry of dis c rim in at ion in b as e pa y un d er T itle VI I by showing that once diff er ences i n the j obs per f or m ed by m al e a nd fem al e e m plo yee s i n each com pensati on c at eg or y a re co rre c te d for, th e s ex -c or re lat ed d iffer en c e in base pay disa pp ear s. A dj usting base pay i n re sponse to m ar ketco m peti ti on ( w h i ch i s di ff er ent fro m o theradj ustm ents, su c h a s those bas ed on f avo rabl e e val uati on o fan em p l oye e’ s per f or m ance) ta kes pl ace w i thi n a r ange that al l ows f orco nsi derabl e v ar i ance. The r ange i s be tw een 2 5 perce nt b elow and 25 perce nt abo ve the m edi an m ar ket w age f orthe j obs i n the cate gor y. Rem em b er that j obs ar e place d i n the sam e co m pensati on ca teg or y b ecause they ar e deem ed by Rol l s- Royce to b e ofequalval ue to the c om pany, but si nce i t ca nnot pay l ess ( and w i l l not pay m or e) than the m ar ketwa ge for a part i cul arj ob, the b a s e pa y f o r the c a t e g o r y i s a r a ng e tha tper m i ts diff er enti ati on because the m ar ketwage f ora cate gor y o f diff er ent j obs i s a l so a r ange. A perso nnel offi cerm i ght b e as v al uabl e to Ro l l s- Ro y ce a s ana er o na ut i ca l e ng i ne er, b ut i fthe l att erco m m an ds a hi gherwage i n the m ar ketf or ae ro n au tic al e n gin ee rs , R olls -R oy c e w ill ha ve to p ay h im o r he rmor e; a nd i f, a s S i sk i n f o und, the r e wer e atthe

### 8 N o. 10

- 3446

ou ts et of th e c om p lain t p e r iod m or e m ale th an fem ale empl o y ee s i n j o bs tha t co m m an d a hi ghe r mar k etwag e, the aver age co m pensati on o fm al e em plo yee s would e xceed th at of fem ale em p loyees i n th e s a m e jo b cate gory for a re aso n unrel ate d to sex di scr i m i nati on. I fcar d iologi sts c om m an d a h igh e r m ar ke t w ag e t h an int er n ist s, th ey w ill be pai d m or e e ven i fthe cl i ni c th at em plo ys both types ofphysi ci an r ega rds them as equal l y v al ua b le. M aybe wo r k e r s i n d i ff e r e n tj o b s th a ta r e i n s o me s e n s e o fc o mp ar ab le v alu e, th ou gh t h e m ar ke t th in ks ot h er w ise , sh ou ld b e pa id th e sam e as a m or al m at te r; b u t “ c om p ar ab le w or th” i s no t r eco gni zed as a theo ryo n w hi ch to bas e a fe d er al d isc rim i n a tio n su it. E .g., Lan g v . Kohl ’s Fo od Store s, Inc. , 2 1 7 F .3d 91 9, 92 3 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ); Am e r i ca n N urs es ’ Ass ’n v. Ill inois , 783 F. 2d 716, 719-20 (7th Cir. 1986); M i ku l a v. Al l egh e n y Cou nty , 583 F. 3d 181, 18 3, 18 5 ( 3d C ir. 20 0 9 ) ( p er cu ria m ); U ni t e d Aut o Worke rs v. M i ch igan , 886 F. 2d 766, 7 68 -69 (6 th Ci r. 19 89)
. A nyw ay i t i s no t urge d by the pl ai nti ff s i n thi s ca se. I n concl ud i ng tha t the bas e- pay d i ff er ence w as att ributable to discrim ination, the p laint iffs’ ex p ert, R ichard Drog in, m ad e e rro rs be sid es failin g t o a d j u st for d iffer en ces i n the j obs o ccupie d by m ale and fe m al e e m plo yee s. W e’ l l ment i o n o nl y o ne o f th es e er r o r s: he i nc l ude d i n the co mpa r i s o n e mpl o y e e s h i r e d a ft e r th e b e g i n n i n go fthe c om p l ai nt per i od. That m ade no sense witho ut an i nquir y, wh i ch he di d not a tte m pt , in to the re aso ns f or th e di ff e r e nts t a r t i ngs a l a r i e s o fma l e a nd fe mal e hi re s. Rem em berthatthe cl ai m i s that Rol l s- Royce di scr i m i nated aga i nst w om en b y f ai l i ng to er ase a dispar i ty i n base pay thatexi ste d at the o utseto fthe com p lain t p er i od; f orN o. 10

- 3446 9 al l we k no w i t di d e r as e i t, an d th e r ea so n f o r the a ppar en t persi ste nce of the dispar i ty i s that new f em ale h i re s w er e, f orr eas on s u n known but not conte nd ed to be discri m i nator y, pai d l ess than new m al e hi re s. H avi ng f ai l ed to r ebut S i ski n’s ke y fi nd in g, either w i th Drogin’s defecti ve re porto r anythi ng el se, the pla i nti ff s’ c o mp l a i n tab o u tb a s e - p a y d i s c r i mi n a t i o n f a i l s . We a dd ( i tb e a r s o n th e i s s u e o fc l a s s c e r t i fi c a t i o n, d i s c u s s e d b e l o w) that i n seve ra l o fthe yea rs i n questi on the nam ed pla i nti ff s’ ba se pay exc ee ded, w i thonl y a f ew exc ept i o ns , tha t o fthe m al e e m plo yee s i n the pla i nti ff s’ co m p ensat i on g ra des wh o th e p l a i n t i ff s c l a i me d w e r e c o mp a r a b l e t o th e m. The nam ed pla i nti ff s a re m or e co ncer ned w i th pro m otio n s th ey faile d to ge t th an th ey ar e w ith th e la rg ely nonexi ste n t ( f orthem atl eas t) bas e- pay di ff er enti al s. Y e t S i s k i n ’ s s t u d y f o u n d th a t wo me n i n th e c l a s s me mber s’ fi ve com pensati on ca teg or i es ar e pr om ot ed o n av er ag e m or e ra p id ly th an m en . Fu rt h er m or e, w h ile m an y prom otions in a fi rm or ot he r i ns titution are m ore o r l es s r o ut i ne a nd ev en a ut o m at i c, thi s i s no t tr ue a t th e l eve l o fo ur pl ai nti ff s, both o f w hom ar e i n the hi ghest ofthe fi ve com pensati on ca te gor i es, ea rni ng wello ver $1 00 ,00 0. R olls -R oy c e h as r ela tiv ely fe w em p loy ee s in th is ra re fi ed str atum a nd thei r w or k i s no t fungibl e. They do diff er ent j obs i nvol vi ng di ffer ent s ki l l s a nd exper i ence. T h e f a c tth a ts o me o fth e ma l e e mpl o y e e s wh o th e p l a i nt i ff s c o n t e n d we r e p r o mo t e d a h e a d o fth e m a r e , l i k e th e m, c alle d “D ire c to r of O p er at ion s” h as n o si gni fica n c e; th e t itle cove rs a m ult i tude of posi ti ons diff er i ng i n author i ty ( such as num bero fem plo yee s s up er vi sed) and re sponsibi l i ty.

### 10 N o. 10

- 3446 I n beg i nning to speakof f acts p ecul i arto the two nam ed pla i nti ff s, w e ar e vee ri ng f ro m m er i ts i ssues to the c er ti fi cati on i ssue. Because the di str i ct j ud ge denie d c l ass cer ti fi cati o n, thus ext r udi ngthe unnamed cl as s m embe r s f r o m the case , hergr ant o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent s pel l ed dis m i ssa l on the m er its o nl y o fthe nam ed pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s. Both thei r pay cl ai m s a nd thei r prom oti on cl ai m s m ay w el l be w eak erthan thos e o fcl ass m em ber s i n l ower co m pensati on g ra des than thei rs . I fwe re ver se th e d en i alo fcl ass cer ti fica tion, we w oul d, as expla i ned ear l i er, j eopar dize th e a b ility of u n n am ed cla ss m em b er s t o o b ta in relie f in i ndi vi duals ui ts o r i n a s ubs eque ntc l as s ac ti o n. F o r tu na te l y fo r the c l as s, the pl aint i ff s’ c ha l l en g e to the denia l o fcl ass cer ti fi cati on f ai l s. Thei r cl ai m s a re , as we j ust no t e d, s i g ni fi c a nt l y we a k e r tha n tho s e o fs o me ( pe r ha ps m an y ) othe r cl as s m embe r s; and a s ex pl aine d i n CE D e s ign Lim it ed v. King Archite ctural M er it s, Inc. , sup ra , 20 11 W L 93890 0, at* 4- 6, n am ed pl ai nti ff s who ar e s ubj ect to a d efense that w ou ld n ot d efeat un na m ed class m em bers ar e n ot adequate cl ass r epres entat i ves, and adequacy o f re prese ntati on i s one ofthe re quir em ents f orcl ass cer ti fi cat ion . Fed . R. C iv. P . 23(a )(4) ; Am ch e m Pr oduc t s , Inc . v. Wi nds or, 521 U .S. 59 1, 62 5-2 7 (1 99 7). T h e d ist ric t jud ge sa id th a tth e p l a i n t i ff s ’ c l a i ms w e r e n o t“ t y p i c a l o fth e c l a i ms or d efe n se s o f th e c l as s,” als o a req u ire m en t (R u le 23( a) ( 3) ) , tho ugh the usual pra c tical si gni fi cance ofl ack o fty pi ca l i ty, a s ag ain e xpl aine d i n CE De s ign , i s t h at it und er mi ne s the a de qu a c y o f the na med pl a i nt i ff a s a re prese ntati ve ofthe enti re cl ass . The adequacy o fthe p l ai nti ff s’ r epres entat i on i s further und er m i ne d by the exi ste nce o fa confl i ct o fi nter est,N o. 10

- 3446 11 beyo nd thati m pli ci t i n thei r h av i ng weakercl ai m s than som e o fthe unn amed c l as s m embe r s, b etwee n the m a nd u n n am ed c las s m em b er s. Am ch e m Pr oduc t s , Inc . v. Wi nds or, sup ra , 521 U .S. at 6 25 ; G ilp in v . Am erica n Fed eratio n o f Sta te, C o un ty & M un icip a l E m plo yees , 875 F.2d 1310 , 1313 (7th Cir. 1989 ); H ine s v. Widnall , 334 F. 3d 1253 , 1258 ( 11th Cir
. 20 03) ( p e r c u r i a m)
. T h e p l a i n t i ff s h a v e a u th o r i t y wi th i n t he co m p a n y wi th r e g a r d t o th e c o mpe n s a t i o n o fs o me , a nd m aybe m any, o fthe unnam ed cl ass m em ber s a nd , as w or ri som e, o verm al e e m plo yee s i n the sam e j ob cate gor i es as th e class m em bers. A lthou gh w e d ou bt th at th e plaintiff s w oul d deliber ate l y depre ss the sal ar y offem al e e m plo yee s w h om th ey su p er vis e, or in c re as e t h e s ala ry of m ale em p loy ee s w h om th ey su p er vis e, in or d e r t o cr ea te ev id en c e o f d i sc rim in at ion , th e p os sib ility of su c h st ra te gic conduct ( w hi ch m i ght be unconsci ous) cre ate s a co nfl i ct o f i nter estbet w een the pl ai nti ff s a nd unnam ed m em ber s o f th e class, (as w ellas w ith Ro ll s-Royc e, ifthe p lai nt iffs ra i sed the sal ar i es ofm al e em plo yee s i n the cl ass m em ber s’ com pensati on ca teg or i es i n or der t o cre ate ev i dence ofse x disc ri m i nati on)
. A cla ss re prese ntati ve’ s co nfl i ct o fi nter est i s ani nd ep enden t g r o und f o r de ni alo fc l as s ce r ti fi ca ti o n. Wagne rv. Tayl or, 836 F.2d 5 7 8 , 595-96 (D.C
. Cir. 1987); We l l s v. Ram s ay, Sca rle t t& Co. , 50 6 F
. 2d 436, 43 7- 38 ( 5th C ir. 1975). T he re i s even eviden ce th at th e pl a in t iffs parti ci pated i n deci si ons concerni ng fem al e e m plo yee s’ com p en sation th at, on their theory of the cas e, w ere disc ri m i nator y. The pla i nti ff s m ade tw o att em pts i n the dist ri ct cour t t o avo i d a fi nd i ng tha t they a re i nadequ ate cl ass r epres entati ves. The fi rs t was to cas t thi s a s a n i nj uncti on cl ass act i on su i t, w hi ch i s to say a cl ass acti on sui t gov er ned by R u le

### 12 N o. 10

- 3446 23( b) ( 2)
. I t i s t rue that Rule 23(b) ( caption ed “Types o f Clas s Acti ons”) is e x p li ci t that the r equi re m ents setf or th in Ru le 23(a) ( cap tioned “Prereq uisites [to Class Act ions”]), such as the r equi re m ent that a nam ed pla i nti ffbe an adequate cl ass r epres entat i ve, applyto al l ty p es ofcl ass ac ti o n, i nc l udi ngthe refo r e cl as s ac ti o n s ui ts s ee k i ng i nj unc ti ve re l i ef

. But depe ndi ngon th e pr ec i se t er m s o fthe re l i efso u gh t, an inj uncti on s uitm i ght a voi d adequacy i ssues that a cl ass acti on sui t f or dam age s, w hi ch w oul d be govern ed by Ru le 23(b) (3), w ou ld p resen t. I t’s easier f or a nam ed pla i nti ffto p ro ve he’ s a n adequate c l ass r epres entativ e in an i nju n c tiv e a c tio n be c au se u su ally th er e is l es s v ar i an ce i n i nj unc ti ve re l i efso ug htf o r mem be r s o fthe cl as s th ani n da m ag es s o ug ht

— im ag in e if th e pla in tiffs in thi s c a s e wer e j ust s eek i ng an i nj uncti on co m m anding base

pay equal i zati on be tw een m al e a nd fem al e e m plo yee s. Bu t that’ s no t what th ey’r e s eek i ng, excl usi vel y o r eve n m ai nl y; and i nd eed thi s i sn’ t a pro p er R ule 23 ( b) ( 2) sui t. Clas s a cti on l aw yer s l i ke to sue under that provi si on because i t i s l es s d em anding, i n a v ar i etyo fways, than R u le 2 3(b )(3) su its , w h ich u su ally are th e o n ly a va ilab le alt er n at ive . M ar k A . Pe rry & R a c h el S. B ra ss , “R u le 23( b) (2) Certi fi cati on o fEm plo ym ent Cl ass A cti ons: A Retur n to Fi rs t Pr i nci ple s, ” 6 5 N
. Y. U
. A nnu al Su r vey of Am
. La w 681, 6 8 9

- 9 2 ( 2 0 1 0 ) ; R o g e r H. T r a ng s r ud , “The A dvers ar y S yst em and M oder n Cla ss A c tio n Prac

ti ce, ” 7 6 G eo. Wa sh. L. R ev. 181, 186- 87 ( 2008 )
. Of parti cul ar si gni fi cance, “pl ai nti ff s m ay att em pt to sho ehor n dam age s acti ons into the Rule 23( b) ( 2) fra m ew or k, depri vi ng cl ass m em ber s o fnot i ce and opt- out prot ecti ons. The i ncenti ves to d o so are l arge. Plaintiff s’ coun se l e ffectively gath ersN o. 10

- 3446 13 cl i ents

— often thousands o fcl i ents

—by a ce rt i fi cati on und er( b) ( 2)
. Def endants at tem pti ng to purchase r es j u d ica ta m ay p re fer ce rt ifica tio n u n d e r (b)(2 ) ov er (b)(3 ).” Boli n v . Se ars , Roe b uc k & C o. , sup ra , 231 F. 3d at 976. H ow fa r R u le 2 3(b )(2) ca n be st re tc h ed is th e is su e in th e g iga n tic c las s a c tio n a ga in st W al-M ar t, D uk es v. Wa l-M a rt Sto res, Inc. , 60 3 F
. 3d 571, 619 (9th Cir

. ) ( en banc) , cer t. gr anted, 13 1 S
. C t
. 7 9 5 ( 2 0 1 0 ) , n o w b e f o r e th e S u p r e me C o u r t
. The pr es en t ca se i s no t as b i ga s tr et ch, b uti t i s bi ge no ug h. True, the onl y m oneta ry r eli efso ught i s ba ck pay; tr ue, too

— contr ar y t o th e co m m on but er ro neous noti on that cour ts ofequ i ty can’ t aw ar d m onet ar y r el i ef

— the y c a n do so i fthe aw ar d i s m er el y inci dental to t h e grant o fan i nj uncti on o r decl ar ato ryr elie f : “i nci dental ” i n the sense o fr e q u irin g on ly a m ec h an ica l co m p u ta tio n . Th at is th e “ c lea n -u p ” d oc tr in e o f eq u ity
. Rei ch v. Cont i ne nt al Casu al ty Co. , 33 F.3d 75 4, 75 6 (7th C ir. 19 94 ); M edtronic, Inc. v. Inte rm edics, Inc. , 725 F.2d 440 , 442-43 ( 7 th Cir. 19 84 ); M owbray v. M os e l ey, Hal lgar t e n, Es t ab r ook & Wee den, Inc. , 79 5 F
. 2d 1111 , 11 13- 14 ( 1st Cir
. 1986 )
. I n such a ca se, to m ake the cl ass r epres entat i ve bring a seco nd sui t, for d a m a g es , on to p of h is inj u n c tiv e a c tio n w ou ld c re at e p oin tle ss red u n d an c y. In r eAl l s t at eIn s . Co
. , 40 0 F
. 3d 505, 507 (7th Cir
. 2005) ; see a l so Le m on v. Int e r nat i onal U ni on o f O per a ting E ng ineers , 216 F.3d 577, 580-81 (7th C ir. 2000 ) , and case s ci ted the re . The pla i nti ff s arg ue that ifonlyequ i tabl e rel i efis sought, a c las s a cti on s uitm ay be m ai ntai ned und erRule 23 ( b) ( 2) eve n i fthe equi table rel i efi s m ainlym onet ar y. W e di sagr ee. S ee Thor n v. Je

f f e rs on- Pil ot Li

f eIns . Co. , 44 5 F
. 3d 311,

### 14 N o. 10

- 3446 331- 32 (4t h C i r. 20 06)
. To r ead “i nj uncti ve” i n the rul e t o m ean “equi tabl e” i s to beco m e m i re d in sti cky questi ons of diff er enti ati ng be tw een “ l ega l” a nd “e quit abl e” acti o ns

— an d su c h qu es tio n s a b ou n d

. Se e, e.g ., M edtronic, Inc. v. Inte rm edics, Inc. , sup ra . We c a n a v o i d the mi r e b y r e c o gni zi ng th at Rule 23( b) ( 2) cl ass act i ons ar e l i m i ted to cas es i n w hi ch “fi nal i nj uncti ve re l i efo r cor re sponding decl ar ato ry relie f” is ap p ro p ria te , rat h er th an ex te n d in g t o a ll case s i n w hi ch any ki nd o fequi table r el i efi s s ought. H ohider v. U nite d P arce l Se rvic e, Inc. , 574 F
. 3d 169, 20 2 ( 3d Cir
. 20 09)
. The m onet ar y r eliefso ught i n a c ase , wh ether denom i nated l ega l o r equi tabl e, m ay m ake the case unsui tab le for R u le 2 3(b )(2) tre at m en t. Ka rtm a n v . State F a rm M ut ual Aut o Ins . Co. , 20 11 W L 48887 9, at* 9 ( 7th Ci r. Fe b. 14 , 20 11 ); In reAl l s t at eIn s . Co ., sup ra , 400 F.3d at50 7-0 8; Ree b v. O hi o Dep’ tof

Re hab i l i t a tio n & Corre ct i on , 43 5 F
. 3d 639, 65 1 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 6)
. A s t hi s ca se i l l us tr at es : c al cul at i ngthe am ou nt o f b a c k pa y t o whi c h the memb e r s o f the cl ass w ou ld be en titl ed ifthe p lai nt iffs preva il ed w ou ld req uire 500 sep ar at e heari ngs. The m onet ar y t ai l would be w aggi ng the i nj uncti on dog. A n inj uncti on thus “w oul d not p r o vi d e ‘ fi n a l ’ r e l i e fa s r e q u i r e d b y R u l e 2 3 ( b ) ( 2 )
. An i nj un c tio n is not a fi nal r em edy i fi t would m er el y l ay an evi denti ar y f oundati on f orsubse quent de term i nati ons of l i abi l i ty. ” Kart m an v. Sta t eFar m M ut ual Aut o Ins . Co. , sup ra , 2011 W L 48887 9, at* 8. It w ou ld n ot be en ou gh , fo r ex am p le, to aw ar d all m embe r s o fthe c l as s 5 per ce nto fthe i r e ar ni ng s dur i ngthe com p lai nt period , to er a s e the alleged ly d iscrim inatory diff er enti alin p ay between m al e a nd wom en em plo yee s; f ori fthe w om en’ s sal ar i es had been 5 per cent hi gherfro mN o. 10

- 3446 15 the o utset, they m i ght have re cei ved l ower perf or m ance o r o the r pa y r a i s e s a b o v e the i r b a s e pa y . Re memb e r that com pensati on i s in fl uenced by the l aborm ar ket : wom en und er payed beca use of the b ase - pay di ff er enti alwould be m or e l i kel y t o re cei ve a com pensato ryp ay adj ustm ent than iftheir base p ay ha d been higher. The cl ai m o fdisc rim i nati on i n prom oti ons prese nts a furtherco m pli cati on. Because Rol l s- Royce does n ot have a fi xe d c o m pen sa ti o n s ch edu l e f o r e m pl o y ee s i n the com pensati on categ or i es at i ssue, indiv i du al i zed hear i ngs w ou ld b e r equi re d to deter m i ne how m uch higher an e mpl o y e e ’ s p a y wo ul d h a v e b e e n ha d s he r e c e i v e d a pr o m o ti o n de ni ed he r o n the g r o und o fhe r s ex . The p r o pe r a pp r o a c h i n thi s c a s e wo ul d thu s h a v e b een for th e p la i n tiffs to se ek cla ss ce rt ifica tio n u n d er R u le 23( b) ( 3)

— w hich requ ires full notice so that class m em bers can o pt out i ftheywant to bring an i nd ep en d en t sui t f or dam age s o r othe r m onet ar y r el i ef

—but to ask fo r i nj uncti ve as w ell as m o n e t a r y relie f. In reAl l s t at eIns . Co. , sup ra , 40 0 F
. 3d at 50 8; se e Laur a J
. Hi ne s, “ Cha l l en g i ngthe I ss ue Clas s Act ion E n d-Run,” 52 E m ory L. J. 70 9, 71 6- 17, 74 1- 43 ( 20 03 )
. I t i s o nl y whenthe pri m ar y r el i efs o ug ht i s i nj unc ti ve , wi thmone ta r y r el i efi f so ug hta t al l mech

ani cal l y com pu tabl e, that el abor ate noti ce i s not re q u i re d and so Rule 23( b) ( 2) i s a pp l i cabl e be cause th e c l ai m s o f the c l ass m em ber s a re uni f or m ( oras the case s s om eti m es sa y, “c oh es ive ”). Je

ff erson v. Ingers oll Int’ l, Inc. , 19 5 F
. 3d 894, 89 7-9 9 (7 th C ir. 19 99 ); Tho rn v . Jefferson -P ilo t Life Ins. Co. , s u pra , 445 F.3d at33 1-3 2; C o lem a n v . Gen eral M o to rs Acc ept anc eCorp. , 296 F.3d 443 , 4 4 7 -4 8 ( 6th Cir. 2002);

### 16 N o. 10

- 3446 M urra y v . A usla nd er, 244 F.3d 807, 812-13 (11th Cir. 2001); All i s on v. Ci tgo Pe t r ol e um Corp. , 151 F.3d 402 , 411 (5th C ir. 1998 ). The pl aint i ff s’ o th era tt empte d e nd r un a r o und the dist ri ct j ud ge’ s deni alo fcer ti fi cati on i s to as k us to r e v e r s e h e r d e n i a l o fth e i r mo t i o n t o s u b s t i t u t e t wo oth er class m em bers f or th e origi na l na m ed p la intiff s

— substi tutes w h o m i ght ha ve a m or e typi cal( and, not i nci dental l y, a str onge r) c l ai m than the o ri gi nal pl ai nti ff s. Such subst i tuti on ( vi a per m i ssi ve i nter vent ion by an unnam ed pla i nti ff, w ho ifinte rv enti on is all owed bec om es th e n am ed p lain tiff a n d th u s t h e c l as s re p re se n ta tiv e) is p os sib le. Se e F ed . R. C iv. P . 23(d )(1) (B )(iii), 24 (b ); Cham p v . Si ege l Tr adi ng Co. , 55 F. 3d 269, 2 7 2 -7 4 ( 7th Cir. 1995); Bi r min gh am S t e e l Co rp. v . TVA , 35 3 F
. 3d 1331 , 13 39 ( 11th C ir. 20 03 ); M c Ko wa n L o we& C o . v . Ja s mi n e, L t d. , 2 95 F. 3d 38 0, 3 83 , 3 89 ( 3d Ci r . 2 00 2)
. But i t’ s no t a ut o m at i c, a nd the di s t r i c tj u d g e wa s o n s o u n d g r o u n d i n r u l i n gth a tthe m o ti o n, fi l ed o n Mar ch 26 , 20 10 , ca m e to o l at e. S ee F ed. R. Ci v. P. 2 4(b)( 3) ( “in e xe r ci singi ts di sc r et i o n [ i n de ci di ng w hetherto per m i t i nter venti on] , the cour t m u st co nsi der w hetherthe i nter venti on wil l undu l y del ay orprej ud i ce th e ad j ud ication of th e ori ginal parties’ ri gh ts”). The m oti on was notfi l ed unti l afterthe j ud ge had denied cl ass cer ti fi cati on

— and that w as al m ost f our yea rs aft er th e suit ha d begu n a n d l ong after i t w as p lai n th at th ere wer e su bs ta nt i aldo ubt s abo utthe ty pi ca l i tyo fthe nam ed pla i nti ff s’ cl ai m s and the adequacy of th eir repres e nt a t i on ofthe c l a s s . As the di s t r i c tj ud g e e xp l a i ne d, “u n til [th e p lain tiffs ] se c u re d th e a ss ist an c e o f ad d itio n al,N o. 10

- 3446 17

m or e e xperi enced co unse l, thi s ca se prog re sse d at a n al m o sti m per ce ptibl e pac e, wi thPl aint i ff s se eki nga nd r ec ei vi ngnumer o us e xt en si o ns o fthe de adl i ne s f o r fi l i ng th eir class certifi cation m otion, to the point th at th e C ou rt fi nal l y had t o adm oni sh co unsel r ega rdi ng the i r du ty o f di l i g en ce a nd t o v o i ce o ur c o nc erns o ve r the a ppar en t l i mi t e d r e s o u r c e s b e i n gd e v o t e d t o th e c a s e . ” 2 0 1 0 WL 98 74 84 , a t * 13
. Thi ng s spe d up fo r a tim e whenthe pl ainti ffs ret ai ned a fi rm “with apparentl y m uch needed cl ass acti on e xperti se and add i ti onalr eso u rce s”

—bu t the firm so o n wi th dr ew, c i tingirr ec o nc i l ab l e di ff er en ce s wi ththe p lain tiffs ’ orig in al la w ye rs . Id. The j u d ge re m ar ked that “l o ca l c o uns elha s be eni n the ‘ dr i ve r ’ s se at ’ thr o ug ho utthe c a s e , an d ha s s e t, a tb e s t, a p l o d d i n gp a c e . ” 2 0 1 0 WL 1948 222, at* 3. I t would go too farto s ugges t that unl ess subst i tuti on f or the or i gi nal nam ed pla i nti ff s i s sought as soo n as a s ubsta nti al chal l enge to cer ti fi cati on i s m ade, the dist ri ct j ud ge i s j usti fi ed in d en ying i t. S uch a r ule m i ght invol ve co ns ta nti nt er r upt i o ns o fthe pr o ce edi ng

— proce du ra l hi cc up s

— as n ervous cl ass act i on co unsel tr i ed to add new cl ass r epres en tati ves eve ryti m e the defendants r ai sed an o bj ecti o n t o c er ti fi ca ti o n. Buti t was o bv i o us fr o m the ou ts et th at th es e n am ed p lain t i f f s fa c ed a se riou s c h all en g e to thei r s ta tu s as c l as s r epr es en ta ti ve s. And w ith th e e n t i r e cla ss in o n e loc at ion (a sin gle p lan t in I nd iana), class cou ns el had am p le opp o rtu nity to sift thro ugh potent i alnam ed pla i nti ff s be f or e deci ding on R an d all a n d P ep m eie r. Int er ve n tio n sh ou ld n ’t b e a ll owed j ust t o gi ve c l ass act i on l aw yer s m ult i ple bi tes at th e c er tific at ion ap p le, w h en th e y h a v e c h os en , as s h ou ld

### 18 N o. 10

- 3446 have been obvi ous fro m the sta rt, p at en tl y inapp ro pri ate c an d id at es to be th e c las s re p re se n ta tiv es . Gri ffin v. Sin gleta ry, 17F. 3d 356, 3 59 -60 ( 11th Cir
. 19 94) ; se e a l so Sanford v. M em be rWorks, Inc. , 625 F.3d 550 , 560-61 (9th C ir. 2010 )
. The j ud ge w as j usti fi ed i n denyi ng the m oti on to i nter vene. A FFI RMED .

3- 30- 11