Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R.

Citation267 F.3d 147
Decision Date31 May 2001
Docket NumberDocket Nos. 00-9417,METRO-NORTH,DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
Parties(2nd Cir. 2001) CHARLES ROBINSON, SHARON E. MACK, JAMES OLIVER, DARRYLL F. SIMPSON, VERONICA CARIDAD, DONALD HINES, JAMES JACKSON, LORD TAYLOR, EARL VAUGHN, DANIEL CANADA, MARVIN EDWARDS, ERIC JONES AND RAYMOND NORRIS, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,, v.COMMUTER RAILROAD CO.,(L), 00-9423(C) August Term 2000 Argued:
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

Alan L. Fuchsberg, The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm, New York, Ny, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Myron D. Rumeld, Proskauer Rose, Llp, New York, Ny, for Defendant-Appellee.

Wendy R. Fleishman, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp (Coalition of Labor Union Women), New York, Ny; Barbara R. Arnwine (Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law), Washington, Dc; Antonia Hernandez (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund), Los Angeles, Ca; Karen K. Narasaki (National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium), Washington, Dc; Dennis C. Hayes (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), Baltimore, Md; Paula A. Brantner (National Employment Lawyers Association), San Francisco, Ca; Marcia D. Greenberger (National Women's Law Center), Washington, Dc; Brad Seligman (Impact Fund), Berkeley, Ca; for Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Ann Elizabeth Reesman, McGuiness Norris & Williams (Equal Employment Advisory Council), Washington, Dc; for Amicus Curiae on behalf of Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Walker, Chief Judge, Calabresi and Pooler, Circuit Judges.

John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants (the "Class Plaintiffs") appeal from a September 29, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge) that denied Class Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and bifurcation, and that directed entry of judgment in favor of defendant-appellee Metro-North Commuter Railroad ("Metro-North"). See Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 197 F.R.D. 85 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ("Robinson II").

The district court's judgment dismissing the action is vacated. On remand, the district court is instructed to certify the Class Plaintiffs' disparate impact claim for Rule 23(b)(2) class treatment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), and consider whether the pattern-or-practice disparate treatment claim is appropriate for (b)(2) certification in light of the standard we set forth herein. If the court determines that (b)(2) certification of the pattern-or-practice claim is inappropriate, it shall bifurcate the claim, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b), and certify the liability stage of the claim for (b)(2) class treatment, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)(A).

BACKGROUND
A. The Allegations

The background of this case is substantially detailed in Caridad v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 191 F.3d 283, 286-90 (2d Cir. 1999) ("Caridad") (reversing the denial of class certification, see Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 175 F.R.D. 46 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) ("Robinson I")). Only those facts relevant to this appeal are recited below.

The Class Plaintiffs are present and former Metro-North employees who are African American. They bring this putative class action against defendant Metro-North on behalf of "all African-American employees of Metro-North for the period from 1985 through 1996--an estimated 1,300 persons." Caridad, 191 F.3d at 286. Metro-North is a public benefit corporation responsible for providing commuter rail transportation between New York City and its northern suburbs. It has approximately 5,700 employees in 220 different occupations spread over 37 departments.

The Class Plaintiffs assert both pattern-or-practice disparate treatment and disparate impact claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, they challenge Metro-North's company-wide policy of delegating to department supervisors discretionary authority to make employment decisions related to discipline and promotion. Relying on statistical and anecdotal evidence, the Class Plaintiffs argue that this delegated authority has been "exercised in a racially discriminatory manner and has a disparate impact on African-American employees." Caridad, 191 F.3d at 286; see Robinson I, 175 F.R.D. at 47. In their prayer for relief, the Class Plaintiffs seek "injunctive and equitable relief for the class as a whole," including back and front pay, and also "compensatory damages for individual members of the class who were allegedly the victims of individual acts of intentional discrimination." Robinson II, 197 F.R.D. at 87. No request for punitive damages was made.

B. The Earlier Appeal

In August 1997, the district court denied an earlier request for class certification because it held that the Class Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a class action set out in Rule 23(a)(2), (3).1 Specifically, the district court found that the Class Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate commonality and typicality. See Robinson I, 175 F.R.D. at 47-49.

"The commonality requirement is met if plaintiffs' grievances share a common question of law or of fact." Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 376 (2d Cir. 1997) (per curiam). Typicality "requires that the claims of the class representatives be typical of those of the class, and is satisfied when each class member's claim arises from the same course of events, and each class member makes similar legal arguments to prove the defendant's liability." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

Central to the district court's finding that the Class Plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate commonality and typicality were the following: (1) Metro-North satisfied the district court that the "plaintiffs' statistics are inadequate to carry their burden of establishing commonality as to the company-wide class" because "they fail to take account of the fact that different Metro-North positions have materially different individual rates of discipline and of promotion associated with them;" and (2) Metro-North's "overdelegation" of promotion and discipline authority to supervisors is not sufficient to make out a pattern or practice of racial discrimination. Robinson I, 175 F.R.D. at 48-49. We disagreed and held that: (1) the "`statistical dueling'" between the Class Plaintiffs and Metro-North was "not relevant to the certification determination," and that the Class Plaintiffs' statistical report, "in conjunction with the anecdotal evidence, satisfie[d] the Class Plaintiffs' burden of demonstrating" commonality and typicality; and (2) the delegation of discretionary authority to supervisors for discipline and promotion constitutes a policy or practice sufficient to satisfy the commonality requirement. Caridad, 191 F.3d at 292-93.2 The case was remanded for the district court to consider "whether the requirements of Rule 23(b) [were] met." Id. at 293.

C. The District Court's Ruling After Remand

Following remand, the Class Plaintiffs moved in the district court for (b)(2) class certifications of both the pattern-or-practice disparate treatment claim and the disparate impact claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). As an alternative to class certification of the pattern-or-practice claim in its entirety, Class Plaintiffs sought bifurcation of the claim between the liability and remedial stages, and (b)(2) class certification of just the liability stage. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4)(A) (permitting class certification of "particular issues").

The district court denied the motions. Relying on the Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998), the district court reasoned that (b)(2) certification of the entire pattern-or-practice disparate treatment claim was inappropriate because the individualized compensatory damage issues would predominate over the class-wide equitable relief question, see Robinson II, 197 F.R.D. at 87-88. Central to the district court's conclusion was its belief that

determination of the damages suffered by individual members of the class would require individualized proof and proceedings to determine whether each such member suffered intentional discrimination on the part of his or her department manager, what injuries each such member thereby suffered, what individualized damages were appropriate to redress such injuries, etc.

Id. at 88. "[The] multiple individual determinations of damages for the numerous members of the class," the district court concluded, "would overwhelm classwide injunctive issues, from both the standpoint of the individual plaintiffs and the standpoint of the Court." Id.

With respect to the Class Plaintiffs' alternative request...

To continue reading

Request your trial
398 cases
  • Claude v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-00535 (VLB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • 14 Agosto 2014
    ... ... Feb. 15, 2011) (quoting Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 160 (2d Cir. 2001)). In ... ...
  • Pacheco v. New York Presbyterian Hosp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 9 Enero 2009
    ... ... See Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 160-61 (2d Cir.2001). To ... ...
  • Torres v. Gristede's Operating Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 28 Agosto 2008
    ... ... See Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 324, 97 S.Ct. 1843; see also Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2001). In the ... ...
  • U.S.A v. City Of N.Y.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • 13 Mayo 2010
    ... ... Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 158 (2d Cir.2001). “To ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (December 2013)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 18 Diciembre 2013
    ...options. * Originally published by Bloomberg, BNA. Reprinted with permission. [1] See, e.g., Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. [2] Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). [3] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2559-60 (2011) (stating that injunctive or declara......
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes Redux: The Future Of The Sprawling Class Action
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 9 Noviembre 2011
    ...Husband and Williams, supra note 5 at 51-52. See id. See also Allison, supra note 73 at 415; Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 164 (2d Cir. 2001); Dukes, supra note 19 at See Husband and Williams, supra note 5 at 52-53. F.R.C.P. 23(b)(3). See F.R.C.P. 23(c)(2)(B). Wal......
9 books & journal articles
  • Antitrust Class Certification Standards
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...abrogates the standard for monetary relief in Rule 23(b)(2) class actions that we announced in Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 164 (2d Cir. 2001), it does not foreclose an award of monetary relief when that relief is incidental to a final injunctive or declaratory r......
  • Statistical Evidence
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Employment Evidence
    • 1 Abril 2022
    ...Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , ---U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2555-56, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011); Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R ., 267 F.3d 147, 158 & n. 5 (2d Cir. 2001) (“In a pattern and practice disparate treatment case, statistical evidence constitutes the core of a plaintiff’s pr......
  • Sexual Harassment and Disparate Impact: Should Non-targeted Workplace Sexual Conduct Be Actionable Under Title Vii?
    • United States
    • University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Law Review No. 81, 2021
    • Invalid date
    ...that the evidence in disparate impact cases "usually focuses on statistical disparities"); Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147, 160 (2d Cir. 2001) (stating that "statistical proof almost always occupies center stage in a prima facie showing of a disparate impact claim");......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...Class Actions Handbook Robertson v. Thomson Corp., [1999] O.J. No. 908 (Can. Ont. S.C.J.), 293 Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R. Co., 267 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2001), 175, 176 Robinson v. Tex. Auto Dealers Ass’n, 387 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2004), 150, 179, 180 Rocois Constr. Inc. v. Quebec Read......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT