Arthur Lewis, Jr. v. City of Chicag
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 25707
7th Cir.2012Background
- Four would-be intervenors sought to intervene after final judgment to upset the resolution and obtained denial as untimely.
- Litigation concerns Title VII disparate impact from a 1995 Chicago Fire Department exam cutoff at 89, with later hires from a 65–88 pool commencing in 2002–2006.
- A 2007 judgment granted relief to some plaintiffs; the Supreme Court later clarified accrual in 2010, affecting subsequent hires.
- District court treated a 2007 database change (excluding hired firefighters) as redefining the class, though no formal class-definition order existed.
- Intervenors knew of the litigation by 2005 but did not pursue action until 2012; the court considered intervenors’ delay and notice as relevant to timeliness.
- Rule 23(b)(2) noted no notice requirement for relieffocused class actions, while propriety of the relief and remedies remained contested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of intervention | Intervenors learned of relief-limiting developments by 2005 and 2012 intervention was timely. | Delay until 2012 was untimely given knowledge in 2005 and the intervenors’ failure to act promptly after adverse developments. | Intervention denied as untimely. |
| Whether the class was properly defined/certified | There was a formal class certification and definition that bound all African American applicants in the 1995 scoring range. | The district court failed to define or certify the class properly; no valid certification order defined the class. | Class was not properly defined/certified; unresolved class definition contributed to timeliness issues. |
| Tolling and accrual under American Pipe/Crown, and later Lewis accrual rules | Tolling persisted until certification decisions; new claims accrued with each use of the hiring list. | Tolling ended in 2007 when the district court’s modifications showed contact with the class; later hires accrued separately. | Intervenors’ claims were untimely given accrual and tolling framework; later hires’ claims not viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sokaogon Chippewa Community v. Babbitt, 214 F.3d 941 (7th Cir. 2000) (deference on appeal and factual determinations)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (Supreme Court 1983) (tolling/continuing effects for class actions)
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (Supreme Court 1974) (tolling of statute of limitations for class actions)
- People Who Care v. Board of Education, 68 F.3d 172 (7th Cir. 1995) (prompt intervention after developments affecting interests)
- Lewis v. Chicago, 528 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2008) (accrual and timeliness in Title VII disparate-impact context)
- Lewis v. Chicago, 643 F.3d 201 (7th Cir. 2011) (remand; consideration of later hires and timely relief)
- Lewis v. Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 2191 (2010) (Supreme Court decision on accrual of new Title VII claims)