Court Opinion

ID: 9492492
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:42:28.856881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:20.060682
License: Public Domain

WALKER, Circuit Judge,
dissents in part:
I join in that portion of the majority’s opinion that affirms the dismissal of the claims of Veronica Caridad. However, with respect to the majority’s view that the district court erred in denying class certification, I respectfully dissent.
Although it is true that our court’s review should be somewhat more probing when a district court denies class certification than when it grants it, see Lundquist v. Security Pac. Automotive Fin. Servs. Corp., 993 F.2d 11, 14 (2d Cir.1993) (per curiam), our standard of review still remains one of abuse of discretion, see id.; Johnpoll v. Thornburgh, 898 F.2d 849, 852 (2d Cir.1990) (per curiam). The district court acted well within its discretion when it denied class certification in this case. It is the duty of a district court faced with the question of class-action certification to scrutinize the available evidence, make factual findings where necessary and conduct “a ‘rigorous analysis’ to determine whether Rule 23(a) has been satisfied.” Sheehan v. Purolator. Inc., 839 F.2d 99, 103 (2d Cir. 1988) (quoting General Tel. Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982)). The question that the district court had to decide in this ease was whether plaintiffs had established common questions of law or fact sufficient to meet the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a). I do not believe that they did. Simply alleging that the proposed class was all employees of Metro-North, and that they were members of an identifiable group of persons based on race, is, of course, insufficient to meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality requirements. Instead, discrimination plaintiffs must identify a common policy or practice, to which they were all subjected, that resulted in discrimination. This is what the Supreme Court meant when it said in Falcon that
Title VII prohibits discriminatory employment practices, not an abstract policy of discrimination, The mere fact that an aggrieved private plaintiff is a member of an identifiable class of persons of the same race or national origin is insufficient to establish his standing to litigate on their behalf all possible claims of discrimination against a common employer.
Falcon, 457 U.S. at 159 n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 2364 (emphasis in original). As a matter of law, I cannot agree with the majority that Metro-North’s practice of delegating personnel decisions — plaintiffs prefer to call it “overdelegation” — constitutes a policy or practice sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a). In my opinion, the district court should not have considered both parties’ expert reports at the class certification stage. Although this evidence would be relevant to a determination of the merits of plaintiffs’ discrimination claim, it was not relevant to a determination of the propriety of certify*297ing a class. Plaintiffs have never argued that Metro-North, at the highest levels, has a hidden policy of discrimination that could be smoked out by showing disparate impact throughout the company. Plaintiffs have conceded that Metro-North does not have a policy of discrimination. Indeed, it is undisputed that the company has written anti-discrimination policies applicable to all departments. Plaintiffs contend instead that certain department managers violate these policies by discriminating, and that it is Metro-North’s policy of delegating to these managers the authority to promote and discipline that renders Metro-North liable for discrimination. Given this theory of the case,. the district court should have deferred consideration of the expert reports until it was time to consider the merits of the discrimination claim. See Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78, 94 S.Ct. 2140, 40 L.Ed.2d 732 , (1974); Schweizer v. Trans. Union Corp., 186 F.3d 233, 239 (2d Cir.1998). Even though the district court’s consideration of this evidence was premature, however, the district court’s ultimate conclusion that there was no common question of law or fact to plaintiffs’ claims sufficient to meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality requirements should be affirmed.
I do not know whether there might be one or more groups of employees within particular departments at Metro-North, who were subjected to common discriminatory practices or policies by specific department heads, that might properly be certified as classes under Rule 23(a); the issue is not before us. But, in the absence of some affirmative practice leading to discrimination by Metro-North — beyond the quite normal management practice of delegating personnel responsibility to departmental managers under the umbrella of an established anti-discrimination policy — I do not agree with the majority that the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied and that company-wide class certification is warranted, much less that the district court abused its discretion in denying it.
I respectfully dissent.