Court Opinion

ID: 9463797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:16:41.264211+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:17.587246
License: Public Domain

ROSS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that the trial court should have permitted this action to proceed as a class action. I do not agree, however, with the determination that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s individual claim. The specific findings as to credibility and as to the facts concerning the appellant’s personal case are set forth at length in Judge Devitt’s opinion, Donaldson v. Pillsbury Co., 406 F.Supp. 1210 (D.Minn.1976), and, in my opinion, are not clearly erroneous.
The majority suggests that appellant’s claim be reconsidered in light of “relevant evidence of discriminatory patterns and practices by Pilisbury.” But unless the trial court erred in some or all of its specific detailed findings of fact, the general statistical evidence will not change the fact that Pilisbury proved that it was fully justified in discharging the appellant for nondiscriminato'ry reasons. I do not agree that the fact that some evidence was admitted nunc pro tunc subsequent to trial is any indication that the trial court failed to give it full consideration as it related to appellant’s individual case.
I have serious reservations concerning the ability of the plaintiff to properly represent the class she seeks to represent in view of the fact that her own case was so completely without merit. However, I do agree that the failure of the class representative to prevail on her own claim does not necessarily disqualify her from representing the class.