Sixth Circuit Affirms Refusal to Certify Disparate Impact Sex Discrimination Case

by BakerHostetler
Contact

On May 30, 2013, the Sixth Circuit issued its decision in Davis v. Cintas Corporation, Case No. 10-1662 (6th Cir. May 30, 2013), in which it upheld a district court’s refusal to certify a disparate impact Title VII case, but interestingly found that questions of fact precluding summary judgment on the lead (and now only) plaintiff’s individual claim. The Davis case provides guidance on a number of issues including the continued application of the decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), efforts by plaintiffs to find clever ways around Duke’s holding, and related challenges to employment practices under a disparate impact theory.

This is the third blog we’ve written on essentially the same two cases brought in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Michigan against uniform supplier Cintas. These cases involve alleged conduct as far back as 2003, ten years ago, but the litigation is ongoing. Our prior postings, which discuss the EEOC’s involvement, were referenced in September 2010 and November 2012.

In a nutshell, the plaintiffs and EEOC assert that Cintas discriminated on the basis of sex in hiring for its entry-level sales positions. In the Davis case the plaintiff asserted both disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and purported to bring those claims on behalf of a class of unsuccessful female applicants for those positions. The district court refused to certify the class, citing differences among hiring managers at different locations, as well as conflicts among the then plaintiff representatives and the proposed classes. It ultimately granted summary judgment against Davis on her individual claims.

Along the way, several other plaintiffs dismissed their individual claims, so that only Davis herself appealed. While the appeal was pending, the United States Supreme Court decided the Dukes case.

The plaintiff appeared to have made the right arguments at the time the case was before the district court. First, it is apparent that during the course of the case she patterned her class claims after the ones successful (at least up until 2011) in Dukes. She challenged the company’s hiring practices on a nationwide basis. She blamed the company’s “corporate culture” for the alleged discrimination, and presented both statistical and anecdotal evidence to support her claims. In parallel with that approach, she pointed to the company’s detailed hiring policies as well as the fact that the same system was used on a nationwide basis. She also retained an expert to assert that the company had a “white-male dominated business culture.” The problem, of course, with that approach was that once the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes was overruled, it was largely a foregone conclusion that the Cintas case could not be certified either. In fact, relying heavily on Dukes, the Sixth Circuit found that the plaintiff could not establish commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) due to the involvement of individual managers in hiring decisions.

The district court had also declined to certify the case due to a lack of predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3), a ruling the plaintiff did not challenge. Instead, she asserted that the case should have been certified under Rule 23(b)(2), but, of course, the Dukes decision precluded that avenue as well because she had prayed for front and back pay, inherently individual relief. The plaintiff tried to side-step Dukes by arguing that she was not advocating “trial by formula,” but, rather a “short-fall based model,” but the court found that, if anything, her model made the problems that troubled the Supreme Court in Dukes even worse. Absent commonality under Rule 23(a), it didn’t matter whether the plaintiff could establish Rule 23(b)(2) because the case could not have been certified anyway.

The court also addressed the grant of summary judgment and, here, gave the plaintiff some relief although it also gave a very positive ruling for employers generally on disparate impact claims. Davis sought to challenge the company’s hiring policies as a whole on a disparate impact basis, but the Sixth Circuit held, consistent with Supreme Court authority, that she could not attack the hiring process itself but had to challenge some discrete employment practice. Davis advanced the argument that she was singling out the subjective aspects of the company’s hiring process, but the Sixth Circuit held she could not do so unless she could show that they were “so intertwined that they were not capable of separation for analysis.” The fact that different managers conducted different interviews under different guidelines precluded such a claim.

While affirming the dismissal of Davis’s disparate impact claims, the court did find a question of fact as to one of her disparate impact claims, arising in 2003, based upon a comparison of Davis and the facially equal or weaker qualifications of the male candidates who advanced in the hiring process. The court remanded the case for further consideration of that claim. The case as a whole had to be a disappointment for the plaintiffs, however, as they had hoped for a broad nationwide disparate impact case and ended up with a decade-old single-plaintiff disparate treatment case.

The bottom line: The Dukes case remains a considerable bar to challenges to nationwide hiring and employment practices. Plaintiffs cannot skirt the need in disparate impact cases to identify a specific employment practice simply by pointing to subjective decisions generally.

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© BakerHostetler | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

BakerHostetler
Contact
more
less

BakerHostetler on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.