Ninth Circuit Reverses District Court’s Refusal To Certify Age Discrimination Class

by BakerHostetler

The most famous, if fictional, San Francisco police Inspector was, of course, Inspector Harry Callahan of the Dirty Harry succession of Clint Eastwood films. The first Dirty Harry movie came out in 1971when its star, known then chiefly by his roles in westerns, was 41 years old. There were a total of five films with Inspector Callahan, the last being Dead Pool when Eastwood was 58. Dirty Harry spent his entire film career in the protected age group.

Meanwhile, the real-life San Francisco police department was, in addition to fighting bad guys, working under a consent decree involving alleged race discrimination in its procedures for promoting police officers to the first rung of the Inspector position. [That decree was entered between the release of The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983)]. The decree terminated in 1998, and was replaced by a complex formula for the appointment of Assistant Inspectors including a “Q-35” Inspector Examination and, following an initial 110 appointments a sliding scale taking other criteria into account.

In 2006, the department scrapped that system and the Q-35 test and opted instead to use a new “Q-50” sergeant’s examination and to assign newly promoted sergeants to duties previously assigned to Assistant Inspectors. Did the Chief feel lucky that day?

If he did, he was wrong.  In 2008, a group of officers who would have been promoted under the 1998-2006 system, but were passed over under the new system filed suit under both the ADEA and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. They contended that the switch constituted a “pattern or practice” of age discrimination and that the new procedure had a disparate impact on older officers.

Testing cases remain good fodder for class action cases – although intended to eliminate claims of bias or favoritism, they are frequent targets of claims of disparate impact and provide, at least arguably, good evidence of commonality in that all of the class members are affected by the same factor (the test itself).

Let’s turn, then, to what happened in Stockwell v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. 12-15070 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2014).

First, the obvious. The original consent decree was issued over 30 years ago. The challenged change in test procedures was announced in 2005 and implemented in 2006, 9 and 8 years ago respectively. The Stockwell case itself was filed in 2008, or 6 years ago. Presumably, in the nearly decade since the challenged change, numerous would be inspectors have moved on. There is no end to the case in sight. Such delays suggest, at a minimum, a serious underlying problem in the manner in which these types of disputes are being handled.

Second, as to the case itself, the district court denied certification due to a lack of commonality under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011), and the plaintiffs requested a Rule 23(f) discretionary appeal, which was granted. The Ninth Circuit ultimately found that the district court abused its discretion in denying certification under Rule 23(a). While, on one level, a challenge to a test does suggest a degree of commonality, several aspects of the Ninth Circuit’s decision give pause.

The court noted tension between the ability to review merits considerations on Rule 23 issues and the need to avoid trial on the merits. Having said that, the Court largely ignored merits issues suggesting the lack of a viable class, including flaws in the plaintiffs’ expert’s statistical analysis and a host of individual issues, including the fact that officers in the class were free to take the new test, the lack of any appointments during a 2-year period, and the fact that even under the prior system there were fewer slots than putative class members.

While the Court agreed, as it had to, that “[a]ny and all of these considerations may prove pertinent to the merits of the case” and “possibly” to Rule 23(b)(3), these are serious issues. Further, nowhere does the court cite the Dukes Court’s observation that Daubert considerations likely apply to expert testimony at the certification stage. We blogged this issue on August 3, 2011. Likewise, while the Court focused myopically on the Q-50 test, even it was unable to articulate how a finding that the test had a disparate impact would resolve the case “in one stroke” – such a finding would only open the door to countless other issues about whether or how the test affected the hiring of a particular individual, and which individuals in particular.  Further, given such a long passage of time, the calculation of damages for each individual, taking into account when they claim they should have been hired, whether they were actually the best qualified for the particular hire at a particular time, etc. would itself be a Herculean task. That task, or more likely a further Rule 23(b)(3) predominance and superiority analysis, will now have to be undertaken by the district court.

While we are discussing never-ending litigation, the district court in Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-01498-CBM(AJWx) (C.D. Cal.), which is now 10 years old and has a tortured procedural history was certified AGAIN on April 15, 2014. We’ve blogged that case in the past at (reversal and remand by the Supreme Court) and (remand by the Ninth Circuit). The order certifying the case again was entry No. 946 on the district court’s docket.

The Stockwell case reflects that even as it is getting harder to maintain employment class action litigation, some courts continue to search for ways to find the requisite commonality when they can point to a significant common issue despite other obstacles.

The Bottom Line: The Ninth Circuit is inclined to find commonality, if not necessarily predominance, in disparate impact cases arising out of testing.


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 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.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

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.


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 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:

- 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.