10-3446 Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp.

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals
CIVIL OPINIONS
Civil Procedure
Class actions

Where the named class members have weaker cases than other class members and a conflict of interest, class certification was properly denied.

“Fortunately for the class, the plaintiffs’ challenge to the denial of class certification fails. Their claims are, as we just noted, significantly weaker than those of some (perhaps many) other class members; and as explained in CE Design Limited v. King Architectural Merits, Inc., supra, 2011 WL 938900, at *4-6, named plaintiffs who are subject to a defense that would not defeat unnamed class members are not adequate class representatives, and adequacy of representation is one of the requirements for class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4); Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 625-27 (1997).

“The district judge said that the plaintiffs’ claims were not ‘typical of the claims or defenses of the class,’ also a requirement (Rule 23(a)(3)), though the usual practical significance of lack of typicality, as again explained in CE Design, is that it undermines the adequacy of the named plaintiff as a representative of the entire class.’

“The adequacy of the plaintiffs’ representation is further undermined by the existence of a conflict of interest, beyond that implicit in their having weaker claims than some of the unnamed class members, between them and unnamed class members. Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, supra, 521 U.S. at 625; Gilpin v. American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, 875 F.2d 1310, 1313 (7th Cir. 1989); Hines v. Widnall, 334 F.3d 1253, 1258 (11th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

“The plaintiffs have authority within the company with regard to the compensation of some, and maybe many, of the unnamed class members and, as worrisome, over male employees in the same job categories as the class members. Although we doubt that the plaintiffs would deliberately depress the salary of female employees whom they supervise, or increase the salary of male employees whom they supervise, in order to create evidence of discrimination, the possibility of such strategic conduct (which might be unconscious) creates a conflict of interest between the plaintiffs and unnamed members of the class, (as well as with Rolls-Royce, if the plaintiffs raised the salaries of male employees in the class members’ compensation categories in order to create evidence of sex discrimination).

“A class representative’s conflict of interest is an independent ground for denial of class certification. Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 578, 595-96 (D.C. Cir. 1987); Wells v. Ramsay, Scarlett & Co., 506 F.2d 436, 437-38 (5th Cir. 1975). There is even evidence that the plaintiffs participated in decisions concerning female employees’ compensation that, on their theory of the case, were discriminatory.”

Affirmed.

10-3446 Randall v. Rolls-Royce Corp.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Barker, J., Posner, J.

Full Text