Opinion ID: 313659
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Who are the class members?

Text: 28 The trial court failed to follow explicitly the mandate of Rule 23(c)(3). 29 The judgment in an action maintained as a class action under subdivision (b)(1) or (b)(2), whether or not favorable to the class, shall include and describe those whom the court finds to be members of the class. 30 Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. Rule 23(c)(3), 28 U.S.C. Nevertheless we believe the judgment by implication describes the scope of the class. 31 The judgment, findings of fact and conclusions of law were all included in an order of the court dated May 19, 1972. In the first paragraph of that order the court stated that Bing instituted this action on behalf of himself and all black employees of Roadway Express, Inc. In one of its initial remedial steps the court ordered defendant Roadway to notify all its black employees at the Atlanta terminal to come forward if they desired a road driver position. In the first paragraph of its judgment the court said, A full evidentiary hearing having been had on the issue of relief for the plaintiff and affected members of the class of black employees of Roadway Express, Inc. . . . These statements indicate that the court intended the class to include all black employees at Roadway's Atlanta terminal. Our belief is corroborated by the court's enjoining Roadway from engaging in any act or practice at the Roadway Express, Inc., Atlanta Georgia facilities which has the purpose or effect of discriminating against any individual because of his race or color. . . . Broad injunctive relief barring racial discrimination is a proper remedy for the protection of all black employees at the terminal. 32 Besides broad injunctive relief for the class as a whole the trial court also gave individual remedies to certain affected members of the class. 5 In effect these were individual actions separate and apart from the class action. The presence of individual claims does not necessarily destroy the class nature of a lawsuit. The court has the power under subdivision (c)(4)(A), which permits an action to be brought under Rule 23 'with respect to particular issues,' to confine the class action aspects of the case to those issues pertaining to the injunction and to allow damage issues to be tried separately. C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil Sec. 1775 at 23. These individual claims were incidental to the instant class action's primary objective of ending racial discrimination at Roadway's Atlanta terminal. Therefore they did not destroy the nature or scope of the class action. 33