Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484761
 


 



Fighting to Keep Employment Discrimination Class Actions Alive: How Allison v. Citgo's Predomination Requirement Threatens to Undermine Title VII Enforcement


Suzette M. Malveaux


Catholic University of America (CUA) - Columbus School of Law

2009

Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2005
Employment Class and Collective Actions, Samuel Estreicher, D. Sherwyn, eds., Kluwer Law International, 2009
CUA Columbus School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-12

Abstract:     
The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provides compensatory and punitive damages and attendant jury trials in cases alleging intentional discrimination, was designed to enhance enforcement and expand remedies. Its enactment, however, has triggered a schism among the circuit courts over what the proper standard is for determining whether monetary damages or injunctive relief predominates, a necessary inquiry for determining whether plaintiffs are entitled to class certification for Title VII claims under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Led by the Fifth Circuit, some federal appeals courts contend that monetary relief predominates unless it is “incidental,” and that compensatory and punitive damages are by “nature” not incidental. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the Second Circuit’s standard - adopted by the Ninth - which permits the courts to use a flexible “ad hoc” approach when determining predomination. This article contends that should the Supreme Court accept the narrow incidental interpretation of the predomination requirement, employees fighting systemic intentional discrimination will be denied one of the most powerful weapons in their arsenal for justice - the class action.

For decades, Title VII class actions have resulted in extensive reforms in employers’ policies and millions of dollars in equitable monetary relief for thousands of employees nationwide. However, this traditional means of enforcement has come under attack. Specifically, the restrictive incidental interpretation diminishes the number of class actions, deprives employees of full relief, and imposes greater costs and burdens on those employment discrimination class actions that do survive. Deterrence and fairness are also undermined.

The ad hoc approach, on the other hand, respects the courts’ discretion and properly reconciles the goals of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and Rule 23. The ad hoc approach’s flexibility allows plaintiffs to seek full relief, while enjoying due process protections available through hybrid certification and discretionary notice and opt-out rights. Furthermore, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and recent amendments to Rule 23 curb potential judicial abuse, and confirm the propriety of allowing federal courts wide latitude in making class certification determinations. Consequently, when the Supreme Court has the occasion to consider the propriety of the Rule 23(b)(2) predomination test, it should embrace the ad hoc balancing test to preserve this essential civil rights enforcement tool - the class action. This article is part of a series examining the impact of procedure on civil rights.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 32

Keywords: Employment discrimination,class action,Rule 23, Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Predomination, Allison v. Citgo, Robinson, Rule 23(b)(2), incidental, ad hoc, Rule 23(b)(3), Class Action Fairness Act, class certification, 2003 Amendments to Rule 23, Civil Rights Enforcement

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: October 7, 2009  

Suggested Citation

Malveaux, Suzette M., Fighting to Keep Employment Discrimination Class Actions Alive: How Allison v. Citgo's Predomination Requirement Threatens to Undermine Title VII Enforcement (2009). Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2005; CUA Columbus School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-12. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1484761

Contact Information

Suzette M. Malveaux (Contact Author)
Catholic University of America (CUA) - Columbus School of Law ( email )
3600 John McCormack Rd., NE
Washington, DC 20064
United States
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 264
Downloads: 46

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.312 seconds