Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Inexperienced Class Counsel Stalls Class Certification While Defendants Attempt to Employ EEOC Conciliation Agreement Against Class

October 17, 2018 by Brooke Patterson and Clifton R. Gruhn

The Northern District of Illinois recently denied a motion for class certification based largely on the inexperience of class counsel, and simultaneously denied the defendant’s motion to deny class certification. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of all present and former female employees who worked at a Chicago area Ford Motor Company facility beginning in 2012. Plaintiffs filed a 123-count complaint alleging a wide range of claims, including sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and various forms of discrimination. During the litigation, the defendant entered into an agreement with the EEOC (the “Conciliation Agreement”), which included a series of commitments to prevent harassment and discrimination, as well as establishing a fund to provide relief to individuals subjected to discrimination.

The court determined that the plaintiffs did not meet Rule 23(a)(4)’s requirement because they could not establish the adequacy of their class counsel. The plaintiffs’ lead counsel had been approved as class counsel in only one other federal case, which resulted in disciplinary action from the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee and malpractice suits from class members. The plaintiffs attempted to bolster their class counsel’s adequacy with a last minute addition of another firm after the defendant had filed its response to the motion for class certification. The court found the addition insufficient, as the defendant had not been given an opportunity to address the adequacy of the late-added class counsel.

The court opined that class certification could be denied based on the inadequacy of class counsel alone, but noted several other deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ motion for certification. The court was concerned about potential conflicts of interest among the proposed class, as discovery revealed that the putative class contained individuals who allegedly participated in the alleged harassment or discrimination. The court also determined that the plaintiffs failed to discuss the elements of their hostile work environment claim in their predominance argument, and individual questions regarding the claim could predominate class issues. Lastly, the court expressed concern whether the plaintiffs could satisfy Rule 23’s typicality requirement given the range of alleged misconduct. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs the opportunity to address the court’s concerns and refile their motion.

Additionally, the court rejected the defendant’s motion to deny class certification based on the Conciliation Agreement. The defendant argued that the Conciliation Agreement mooted the relief plaintiff sought. While the court noted that the Conciliation Agreement was a step in the right direction, its capped monetary fund was available to other employees who were not part of the putative class and it was not clear that the monitoring mechanisms established by the defendant would duplicate the relief the plaintiffs sought. The court deferred considering the potential effects of the Conciliation Agreement on the viability of class certification.

Van v. Ford Motor Company, No. 14-8708 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2018)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Court Denies Class Certification Based on Judicial Estoppel

Next Article »

Employers and Employees Look Ahead to Potential Impact of SCOTUS Rulings on Arbitrations vs Class Action Cases
Brooke Patterson

About Brooke Patterson

Brooke Patterson is an associate at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida. Connect with Brooke on LinkedIn.

Clifton R. Gruhn

About Clifton R. Gruhn

Clifton Gruhn is a Shareholder at Carlton Fields in Miami, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.