Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp..

Decision Date16 September 2011
Docket NumberNo. 07–15838.,07–15838.
Citation657 F.3d 970,94 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44282,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 14156,11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11904,80 Fed.R.Serv.3d 832,113 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 496
PartiesShirley “Rae” ELLIS; Leah Horstman; Elaine Sasaki, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs–Appellees,v.COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Defendant–Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kenwood C. Youmans, David D. Kadue, David B. Ross, Gerlad L. Maatman, & Thomas J. Wybenga, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York, NY, for defendant-appellant Costco Wholesale Corporation.Brad Seligman & Jocelyn D. Larkin, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, CA; Steve Stemerman, Elizabeth A. Lawrence, & Sarah Varela, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, San Francisco, CA; Bill Lann Lee, Lindsay Nako, & Julia Campins, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Oakland, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees Shirley “Rae” Ellis, Leah Horstman, & Elaine Sasaki.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Marilyn H. Patel, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV–04–03341–MHP.Before: RONALD M. GOULD, RICHARD R. CLIFTON, and N. RANDY SMITH, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge:

Costco Wholesale Corporation appeals the district court's order granting class certification in a class action brought by Shirley “Rae” Ellis, Leah Horstman, and Elaine Sasaki (collectively Plaintiffs). In the class action, Plaintiffs allege that Costco's promotional practices discriminate based on gender. Because we granted Costco permission to file an interlocutory appeal, our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand.

This complicated case requires us to consider a number of issues relating to class certification. Several of these issues have recently been clarified by the Supreme Court's decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). Given this new precedent altering existing case law, we must remand to the district court. See Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Curry, 68 F.3d 342, 343 (9th Cir.1995). Specifically, we take the following actions: (1) Because at least one named Plaintiff (Sasaki) alleges a concrete injury that is both directly traceable to Costco's allegedly discriminatory practices and is redressable by both injunctive relief and monetary damages, see Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 985 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc), we affirm the district court's ruling on standing. (2) We vacate and remand the district court's ruling as to “commonality” under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The district court failed to conduct the required “rigorous analysis” to determine whether there were common questions of law or fact among the class members' claims. Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982). Instead it relied on the admissibility of Plaintiffs' evidence to reach its conclusion on commonality. (3) We vacate the district court's ruling as to “typicality” under Rule 23(a), because the district court failed to consider the effect that defenses unique to the named Plaintiffs' claims have on that question. Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 508 (9th Cir.1992). (4) We affirm the district court's ruling that Sasaki is an adequate class representative under Rule 23(a). As a current employee who continues to be denied promotion, Sasaki has incentive to vigorously pursue injunctive relief as well as monetary damages on behalf of all the class members. Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1020 (9th Cir.1998). However, we vacate the district court's finding that Ellis and Horstman could adequately represent the class, because they were former employees and had no incentive to pursue injunctive relief. (5) In light of Wal–Mart 's rejection of the “predominance” test, 131 S.Ct. at 2557–59, the district court must consider whether the claims for various forms of monetary relief will require individual determinations and are therefore only appropriate for a Rule 23(b)(3) class. Thus, we vacate the district court's certification of the class under Rule 23(b)(2).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

I. The PartiesA. Costco

Costco is a corporation headquartered in Issaquah, Washington. Costco operates over 350 warehouse-style retail establishments (warehouses). These warehouses sell items ranging from groceries to electronics. Within each Costco warehouse, the management structure consists of a General Manager (GM), two to three Assistant General Managers (AGM), and three to four Senior Staff Managers. A Costco GM is responsible for the entire operation of his or her respective warehouse and earns an average salary of approximately $116,000, plus stock and bonuses. Costco AGMs are second in command within each warehouse and earn an average salary of approximately $73,000, plus stock and bonuses. Costco's Senior Staff Managers are divided into four categories: Front End Managers, Administration Managers, Receiving Managers, and Merchandise Managers.1 Front End Managers oversee cashiers, membership/marketing personnel, cart staff, and other employees who deal directly with Costco members. Administration Managers manage administrative functions such as payroll and human resources. Receiving Managers oversee stocking of all incoming items from the receiving dock to the shelves. Merchandising Managers oversee lower level managers and are responsible for planning floor displays to maximize sales.

Costco promotes almost entirely from within its organization. Only current Costco AGMs are eligible for GM positions. Costco does not have any written policy explaining to employees the criteria to be considered for promotion to GM or AGM, though candidates are promoted from a list of promotable candidates. Costco does not have written guidelines explaining how candidates should be selected for the promotable lists and does not regularly inform employees about the existence of such lists. Costco does not require that more than one candidate be considered for any particular opening or that a performance evaluation or any other documents be reviewed before a recommended candidate is approved. Costco also lacks a consistent practice for interviewing potential candidates for GM and AGM openings. Costco does not keep records regarding the selection process.

Costco employs a different promotion procedure for Senior Staff Managers. Costco fills the majority of Senior Staff openings by rotating managers among the four Senior Staff positions. This rotation is part of Costco's philosophy and, in Costco's opinion, trains and develops managers for future advancement by exposing them to different aspects of Costco's operations. Like the GM and AGM promotion procedures, Costco has no written guidelines regarding rotation of Senior Staff Managers.

B. Ellis

Costco hired Shirley Ellis as an AGM in 1998. Prior to joining Costco, Ellis worked for nearly 20 years in retail management, including five years as a general manager for Sam's Club (Costco's chief competitor). According to Ellis, she left Sam's Club, because she was actively recruited by Costco and promised promotion to GM within a year. On the other hand, Costco claims that it recruited Ellis because she misrepresented herself as a star at Sam's Club, when she had, in fact, lost her job for poor performance.

In Ellis's first year with Costco, she transferred locations twice in order to further her goal of promotion to GM. During this time, several GM positions became available, but she did not learn of the openings until after they were filled. In 2000, Ellis transferred to Colorado to assist her sick mother. According to Ellis, a supervisor told her that it would not hurt her chances for promotion. After six months, Ellis notified Costco that she was again able to relocate anywhere as a GM. In 2002, Ellis sent a letter to her supervisors expressing a “burning desire” to help Costco be successful and advance within the company, asking how the GM selection process worked, where she stood as a candidate for promotion, and what she needed to do to become a GM.

In October 2002, Ellis, while still employed with Costco as an AGM, filed a gender discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that she had been passed over for promotion to GM because she was female. Ellis left Costco in November 2004.

C. Horstman

Leah Horstman worked for Costco for more than 23 years beginning in 1981. In 1996, after 15 years with Costco, Horstman was promoted to be a Senior Staff Manager. By 2000, Horstman had rotated through the Administrative Manager, Merchandise Manager, and Receiving Manager positions. She had earlier worked as an Assistant Front End Manager, but did not rotate to the Front End Manager position because of scheduling conflicts and her duties as a single mother with two young daughters.

Throughout her career with Costco, Horstman repeatedly expressed her interest in advancing to AGM and GM and questioned supervisors about the requirements for both positions. Heeding the advice of a supervisor, Horstman also transferred to a high-volume store and expressed a willingness to move from California to Texas in order to become an AGM. However, in her final three annual self-performance reviews, Horstman indicated that her goal was to stay in a position similar to that which she held at the time for three to five years so that she could balance her family life and then to continue her advancement to AGM and GM. Horstman filed a discrimination charge with the EEOC in October 2003 and resigned in June 2004.

D. Sasaki

Elaine Sasaki began working for Costco in 1985. Sasaki advanced to become a Senior Staff Manager within four years. She received consistently high performance reviews, and her GM first indicated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1001 cases
  • Dunakin v. Quigley
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • April 10, 2015
    ...and (2) will the named plaintiffs and their counsel prosecute the action vigorously on behalf of the class?'" Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 985 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020). Defendants challenge Mr. Dunakin's adequacy as a class representative on the s......
  • Kihn v. Bill Graham Archives, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • April 10, 2020
    ...is appropriate. True Health Chiropractic, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. , 896 F.3d 923, 931 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp. , 657 F.3d 970, 979-80 (9th Cir. 2011)). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, which governs class certification, has two distinct sets of requirements ......
  • Darisse v. Nest Labs, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • August 15, 2016
    ...to pursue his proposed class-wide declaratory, injunctive, and damages relief before anything else. See Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 978 (9th Cir. 2011) ("In a class action, the plaintiff class bears the burden of showing that Article III standing exists."); In re Abbott L......
  • Senne v. Kan. City Royals Baseball Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • July 21, 2016
    ...R. Evid. 702. These criteria can be distilled to two overarching considerations: "reliability and relevance." Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011). The inquiry does not, however, "require a court to admit or exclude evidence based on its persuasiveness." Id. Wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 firm's commentaries
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (November 2013)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 25, 2013
    ...Ct. 1426 (2013). Id. at 1430-31. Id. at 1431 & n.3. Id. at 1432. Id. Id. at 1433-35. See also, e.g., Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that an expert's testimony must be admissible under Daubert and persuasive on the class issues under the "rigo......
  • The ERISA Litigation Newsletter (December 2013)
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • December 18, 2013
    ...that there must be a clear trial plan to proceed under Rule 23(c); judgment vacated in light of Comcast); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (highlighting the critical need to determine how a case will be tried when deciding class certification); Hohider v. United......
  • Shifting Sands In Class Action Litigation
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 4, 2013
    ...F.3d 813, 815-16 (7th Cir. 2010). 7 Sher v. Raytheon Co., 419 F. App'x 887, 890-91 (11th Cir. 2011). 8 Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 9 In re Zurn Pex Plumbing, 644 F.3d 604, 610 (8th Cir. 2011). 10 New Motor Vehicles, 522 F.3d at 25-26. District courts in the ......
  • Six Months Since Comcast: What Do Recent Decisions Mean For Antitrust Practitioners?
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 10, 2013
    ...Univ. Health Sys., 669 F.3d 802 (7th Cir. 2012) (Daubert fully applies at class certification stage); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2012) (recognizing need for Daubert analysis at class certification stage) with In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Litig., 644 F.3d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Class Action Assertion of Indirect Purchaser Claims
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook. Second Edition
    • December 5, 2016
    ...Id. (quoting Comcast, 133 S. Ct. at 1432). 171. Id. (quoting Amgen, 133 S. Ct. at 1432). 172. Id. (citing Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) and In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig., 725 F.3d 244, 255 (2013)). 173. Id. (quoting Butler v. Sears, ......
  • The Role of Experts in Antitrust Class Certification
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • January 1, 2018
    ...certification”); In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litig., 644 F.3d 604, 610-14 (8th Cir. 2011); Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011); Sher v. Raytheon Co., 419 F. App’x 887, 888 (11th Cir. 2011); In re Initial Public Offering Sec. Litig., 471 F.3d 24,......
  • Digging deeper: mass toxic tort class certification after Dukes, Comcast, and Amgen.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 80 No. 4, October - October 2013
    • October 1, 2013
    ...(45) Cox v. Zurn Pex, Inc. (In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Prods. Liab. Lirig.), 644 F.3d 604 (8th Cir. 2011). (46) See, e.g., Ellis v. Costco, 657 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding that the district court improperly ended its Daubert analysis once it determined plaintiffs' expert's testimony......
  • New Federal Legislation Raises Dueling Experts: What Olean Might Mean for the Future of Class Certification in the Ninth Circuit
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association California Litigation (CLA) No. 35-3, 2023
    • Invalid date
    ...[an expert opinion] that the representation was false."].)First, the Olean court pointed to Ellis v. Costco Wholesale (9th Cir. 2011) 657 F.3d 970, as providing the rubric for the use of expert evidence in defeating rule 23(a)'s commonality requirement. In Ellis, the Ninth Circuit vacated a......

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