Document: 431 U.S. 395 97 S.Ct. 1891 52 L.Ed.2d 453 EAST TEXAS MOTOR FREIGHT SYSTEM INC., Petitioner,v.Jesse RODRIGUEZ et al. TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 657, Petitioner, v. Jesse SOUTHERN CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS, Nos. 75-718, 75-651 and 75-715. Argued Jan. 10-11, 1977. Decided May 31, Syllabus Respondents, Mexican-Americans, brought suit against petitioners, their unions employer, a common carrier that employs city over-the-road ("line") drivers, claiming rejection for line-driver jobs under the company's "no-transfer" policy in conjunction with discriminatory effect of seniority system applicable collective-bargaining agreements between company was racially ethnically violated Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964. Although respondents alleged case class action on behalf named plaintiffs all Negroes Mexican-Americans who had been denied equal employment opportunities because race or national origin, they did not make pretrial motion pursuant to Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 23 have certified as action, District Court made no such certification. Respondents stipulated before trial discriminated when were first hired only issue court whether failure consider respondents' applications VII, evidence arguments at confined individual claims, petitioners' defense showing qualified be line drivers. The following dismissed class-action allegations (stressing move certification, focus lack evidence, stipulation, fact large majority union membership recently rejected proposal merger city-driver lists free transfer jobs), claims (ruling challenged policies neutrally applied, proper business policies, lacked qualifications). Appeals reversed, discounting certification ("a responsibility (that) falls court"), itself certifying class, after which it found classwide liability basis proof adduced trial. lack-of-qualification finding disturbed, ruling "premature" each plaintiff member would entitled his application considered merits future vacancies arose. Held: plainly erred imposing petitioners. Pp. 403-406. (a) proceedings clear members discriminatees purported represent, since there abundant unqualified which, addition stipulation he respect initial employment, them ineligible represent persons allegedly suffer injury attack no-transfer rule ground these practices perpetuated past discrimination locked minorities into less desirable discriminatorily assigned. 403-404. (b) plaintiffs' protect interest by moving strongly implies inadequacy representation might receive. P. 405. (c) vote merging odds demand merger. 5 Cir., 505 F.2d 40 (Nos. 75-651, 75-715); 66 69 75-715), vacated remanded. Vilma S. Martinez, San Francisco, Cal., Rodriguez Ruben Montemayor, Antonio, Tex., Herrera Richard C. Hotvedt, Washington, D. C., Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 These cases, like International Brotherhood Teamsters United States, 324, 1843, 396, involve part an employer trucking industry. East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc., is over-the-road, "line," truckdrivers. has policy, prohibiting drivers from transferring terminals jobs.1 In addition, unions, competitive runs date employee enters particular bargaining unit, so driver's does take account any time may spent other company.2 2 this Federal Court, challenging above practices. complaint denominated cause court. After two-day hearing decided merits. Fifth Circuit what appropriate holding statutory rights 42 U.S.C. § 1981 1964, 78 Stat. 253, amended, 2000e seq. (1970 ed. Supp. V). 40. This granted certiorari review judgment Appeals. 425 990, 96 2200, 48 814. 3 * are three initiated litigation plaintiffs, Rodriguez, Sadrach Perez, Modesto Herrera. They employed Antonio terminal, Local Union 657 Southern Conference Teamsters. There operation hired. August 1970, some years hired, applied writing job. accord its declined then filed complaints Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, receiving "right sue" letters see 2000e-5(e), lawsuit. 4 According complaint, origin. specifically should consist "East Freight's Mexican-American Black in-city included collective agreement entered covering State Texas. Additionally properly composed applicants driver positions . July 2, 1965 (the effective VII) present."3 Despite prior 23, Judge. Indeed, " 'the presently pertaining Defendant Plaintiffs' constituted violation 1981.' App. 82. And claims. defendants responded accordingly, much devoted 6 Following trial, allegations. It stressed prompt determination propriety offer question, concentration determined concerned act applications, that, contrary relief sought, n. 3, supra, calling jobs.4 7 also held ruled practices, retaliated filing charges EEOC. further found: "None employees could satisfy qualifications road position according manual due age weight driving record. driving, work, and/or physical records nature casual consideration need given determine cannot qualify become drivers." 64. 8 reversed. With appellate discounted entirely Determination suit, ruled, "responsibility court." F.2d, 50. acknowledged appeal tried, requested more than remanded allegations, consisting Negro covered Stating "the requirements Rule 23(a) must read liberally context suits Section 1981," ibid., 'fairly adequately interests class.' Ibid. minimized antagonism complaint's merged, "(t)he disagreement remedy; regard contention practiced class." Id., 51.5 9 went find Contrary understanding judge tried case, proceeded "as action," acquiescence defendants. 52.6 parties' "an attempt eliminate confusion exposition trial." 10 Accordingly, concluded, upon record, hiring justified necessity, requirement immediately line-haul experience illegal qualification, "their role establishing separate rosters failed allowance minority relegated jobs." 61. disturb court's none driver; rather, "premature," plaintiff, arose.7 II 11 (1) our conclusion record declaring petitioners liability. arriving we do reach question appeals ever certify instance. For inescapably event simple reason evident reached representatives 23(a).8 12 (2, 3) short, Perez represent. As repeatedly held, representative "possess same injury" members. Schlesinger Reservists Committee Stop War, 418 208, 216, 94 2925, 2929, 41 706. See, e. g., Kremens Bartley, 119, 131 12, 1709, 1716, 184; Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 403, 95 553, 559, 532; Rosario Rockefeller, 410 752, 759 9, 93 1245, 1250, 36 1; Hall Beals, 396 45, 49, 90 200, 202, 24 214; Bailey Patterson, 369 32-33, 82 549, 550-551, 512. drivers.9 Thus, suffered result were, therefore simply eligible injury. Furthermore, hire. light hardly mount 13 (4) Apart membership, disclosed least two strong indications "fairly class."10 One Even assuming, number courts district obligation own shall proceed see, Senter General Motors Corp., 532 511, 520-521 (CA6); Garrett City Hamtramck, 503 1236, 1243 Castro Beecher, 459 725, 731 (CA1), surely bears adequacy those expect Nance v, Carbide 540 718, 722-725 (CA4), cert. pending, 76-828, 76-834; Danner Phillips Petroleum Co., 447 159, 164 (CA5); Beasley Kroehler Mfg. 406 F.Supp. 926, 931 (ND Tex.); Walker Columbia University, 62 F.R.D. 63, 64 (SDNY); Glodgett Betit, 368 211, 214 (Vt.); Herbst Able, 45 451, (SDNY). Another factor, apparent suggesting conflict rejecting city- units,11 just Hansberry Lee, 311 32, 44-45, 61 115, 85 L.Ed. 22. 14 (5) We unaware alleging racial ethnic often very suits, involving wrongs. Common questions law typically present. But careful attention remains nonetheless indispensable. mere alleges ensure party lawsuit will adequate real victims discrimination. 15 (6) reasons discussed, err denying dismissing complaint.12 is, vacated, cases consistent opinion.13 16 ordered. Under resign job forfeit order He gets priority over virtue formerly having company, if fails automatically restored fuller description similar system, 343-344, S.Ct., 1858-1859. attacking legality charged excluded jobs, discharged harassed retaliation participating exclusion acquiescing entering erected "dual lines seniority." relief, demanded "merge provide singular based solely employee's anniversary company." meeting negating possibility controlled white stated possible cured tailoring award but suggest how accomplished short doing did: awarding retroactive ignoring merged. apparently concluded colloquy appearing transcript parties understood concern well 52, 14. reflected findings. Moreover, full reveals, concerning general practice admitted, probative ordered opportunity Circuit's "qualification date" principle. See U.S., 333, 1853. provides: "(a) Prerequisites Class Action. sue sued numerous joinder impracticable, (2) (3) defenses typical fairly truck line. His accidents five personal injuries. involved seven injuries, resulting lost work. received four warning abnormally low productivity. fired suit. occasion claimed totally permanently disabled returned customers complained disrespect discourteousness. placed file discharging him, referring deliveries, poor production, absence instructions policy. More notified refuse freight sent deliver give up receive it. An arbitration committee convened connection Perez' discharge favor. Court's clearly erroneous. Nor way "premature." backpay carryover relief. arguendo, even discriminatory, prove injured event. 53, 1871. Cf. Mt. Healthy Board Education Doyle, 429 274, 285-287, 568, 575-576, 50 471. 23(a), quoted 8, supra. 400. Obviously, different presented later appeared otherwise inappropriate representatives. already and, provided decertification appropriate, mooted destroyed subsequent events undermined Franks Bowman Transportation 424 747, 752-757, 1251, 1258-1261, 47 444; Moss Lane 471 853, 855-856 (CA4). Where certified, however, remain decision appropriately including facts developed At point, recognized "there (are) imponderables (class-action) difficult early litigation." 51. Cox Babcock & Wilcox 13, 15-16 75-715, judgments Yellow (CA5), Resendis Lee Way Freight, (CA5). related 396.

Category: 8