Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

More than 500 female employees at an Indiana Rolls Royce plant were denied class certification under Rule 23 (b)(2) and the court entered summary judgment, rejecting their discrimination claims on the merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first noting that appeal was a risky strategy because it could result in different decisions on certification and the merits, causing individuals to be barred from bringing legitimate claims. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the there were no sex-based differences in pay or promotions. The named plaintiffs' claims and defenses were not typical of the class; some named plaintiffs had authority over compensation of male and female workers. The court noted that there might be less variance in a suit seeking only injunctive relief, but the suit sought damages. The Rule under which certification was sought, improperly, according to the court, does not permit plaintiffs to opt out, but calculating damages in this case would require 500 hearings. The district court acted within its discretion in denying a motion to substitute named plaintiffs.

After selling a subsidiary, the company no longer had employees participating in the multi-employer pension plan and sought to withdraw. The underfunded plan claimed that the company owed about $5 million. An arbitrator determined that the company did not have withdrawal liability. The district court agreed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The plan argued that the company had closed other plants, outsourcing work, so that the sale was not solely responsible for the company not continuing contributions. A company is not liable for withdrawal under 29 U.S.C. 1384 if withdrawal is "solely" because of a bona fide sale. The court stated that there was evidence to support the arbitrator's finding that the sale was not part of a plan by the company to withdraw in stages and that the focus must be the transaction at issue: a sale to an ongoing business that is willing and able to continue contributions.

Three white police officers, in good standing, resigned and later sought to be rehired. They were required to reenter the force as entry-level officers with respect to compensation and seniority. An African-American officer who had resigned was subsequently rehired. The city enacted an ordinance, in the interest of diversity, granting him credit for past service. The union filed suit. A state court determined that the union lacked standing. A state suit later filed by the individuals was dismissed as untimely. The officers filed in federal court, which first applied the "paycheck rule," under which each discriminatory paycheck is a separate act that resets the limitations period, but entered judgment for the city when that rule was rejected by the Supreme Court. In 2009, while appeal was pending, Congress enacted the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, amending Title VII (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(e)(3)(A)), reinstating the paycheck rule. The Act is expressly retroactive. The Seventh Circuit concluded that Title VII and Equal Protection claims, based on actions after the state court's decision, were not barred. The compensation system need not be intrinsically discriminatory under Title VII. The court concluded that the paycheck rule also applies to the Equal Protection claims, the limitations period for which began to run when the officers requested equal treatment. The state court decision did not have preclusive effect because it dealt only with the limitations period and did not address discrimination.