Opinion ID: 7263
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Two-Stage Class Certification

Text: The first line of cases is typified by Lusardi v. Xerox Corp.,5 and represents the method followed by the trial court in this matter.6 Lusardi and its progeny are remarkable in that they do not set out a definition of similarly situated, but rather they define the requirement by virtue of the factors considered in the similarly situated analysis.7 In other words, this line of 5 Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J.1987), mandamus granted in part, appeal dismissed, Lusardi v. Lechner, 855 F.2d 1062 (3rd Cir.1988), vacated in part, modified in part, and remanded, Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 122 F.R.D. 463 (D.N.J.1988), aff'd in part, appeal dismissed, Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964 (3rd Cir.1992). 6 Appellants advance Sperling v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 118 F.R.D. 392, 407 (D.N.J.1988), aff'd in part and appeal dismissed in part, 862 F.2d 439 (3rd Cir.1988), aff'd and remanded, Hoffman-La Roche, Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 110 S.Ct. 482, 107 L.Ed.2d 480 (1989), as a different approach to the similarly situated inquiry. Upon careful examination, however, it is obvious that the Sperling court only addressed class certification at the notice stage. In fact, the court leaves open the possibility of future decertification of the class. See id. at 407 ([N]othing would appear to prevent the court from modifying or reversing a decision on similar situations' at a later time in an action, as new facts emerge.). We read the Sperling case as simply another example of the two-stage Lusardi analysis. 7 Four factors were named as the primary reasons for the initial decertification of the Lusardi class. See Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118 F.R.D. 351, 359 (D.N.J.1987), For several reasons, including (1) the disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various defenses available to 6 cases, by its nature, does not give a recognizable form to an ADEA representative class, but lends itself to ad hoc analysis on a case-by-case basis. Under Lusardi, the trial court approaches the similarly situated inquiry via a two-step analysis. The first determination is made at the so-called notice stage. At the notice stage, the district court makes a decision—usually based only on the pleadings and any affidavits which have been submitted—whether notice of the Xerox which appear to be individual to each plaintiff; (3) fairness and procedural considerations; and (4) the apparent absence of filings required by the ADEA prior to instituting suit, the class will be decertified. On remand, the Lusardi court examined a variety of factors, and again decided to decertify the class. The members of the proposed class come from different departments, groups, organizations, sub-organizations, units and local offices within the Xerox organization. The opt-in plaintiffs performed different jobs at different geographic locations and were subject to different job actions concerning reductions in work force which occurred at various times as a result of various decisions by different supervisors made on a decentralized employee-by-employee basis. This case should not continue in a class status. .... There is no commonality amoung [sic] the people who were subject to more than sixty-five separate reductions in force, virtually all of which occurred at separate points in time. In the absence of one corporate wide reduction in force, about all that the members of the proposed class have in common is their termination and age within the protected range. The disparate individual defenses asserted by Xerox heightens the individuality of the claims and complicates the significant management problems. Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 122 F.R.D. 463, 465-66 (D.N.J.1988) (citations omitted). 7 action should be given to potential class members. Because the court has minimal evidence, this determination is made using a fairly lenient standard,8 and typically results in conditional certification of a representative class. If the district court conditionally certifies the class, putative class members are given notice and the opportunity to opt-in. The action proceeds as a representative action throughout discovery. The second determination is typically precipitated by a motion for decertification by the defendant usually filed after discovery is largely complete and the matter is ready for trial. At this stage, the court has much more information on which to base its decision, and makes a factual determination on the similarly situated question. If the claimants are similarly situated, the district court allows the representative action to proceed to trial. If the claimants are not similarly situated, the district court decertifies the class, and the opt-in plaintiffs are dismissed without prejudice. The class representatives—i.e. the original plaintiffs—proceed to trial on their individual claims. Based on our review of the case law, no representative class has ever survived the second stage of review.