Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.
877 F. Supp. 2d 113
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Goldman moved to strike all class allegations and for partial summary judgment.
- Magistrate Judge Francis denied the motion in the Report and Recommendation (R&R).
- The district court affirmed in part and reversed in part the R&R.
- Plaintiffs’ claims center on Rule 23(a)(2) commonality and specific companywide practices (360-degree review, forced-quartile ranking, promotion “tap on the shoulder”).
- Dukes v. Walmart provides the framework for commonality and scale considerations, with distinctions in this case.
- The court also addressed standing under Rule 23(b)(2) for ex-employees and exhaustion of administrative remedies under Title VII before asserting the remaining rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commonality is satisfied under Rule 23(a)(2). | Pls identify companywide practices tying claims together. | Dukes forecloses commonality due to managerial discretion. | Denied; commonality found with companywide practices. |
| Whether Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is met. | Predominance follows from common issues. | Depends on commonality; if lacking, no predominance. | Denied as premature based on unresolved commonality. |
| Whether ex-employees have standing under Rule 23(b)(2). | Ex-employees may seek reinstatement and injunctive relief. | Dukes forecloses standing for ex-employees. | Held that Dukes forecloses standing under 23(b)(2) in this context. |
| Whether plaintiffs exhausted administrative remedies for disparate-impact claims. | EEOC charges identified facially neutral policies; exhaustion satisfied. | Disparate-impact theory not properly exhausted. | Exhaustion satisfied; claims not barred on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality hinges on a common contentions that can be resolved class-wide; scale matters)
- McLaughlin v. American Tobacco Co., 522 F.3d 215 (2d Cir. 2008) (court cites class certification standards for Rule 23(a)(2) and (b)(3))
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (discusses uniform employment practices and class certification standards)
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (affirmed denial of class certification on a broad, company-wide policy basis (reconsidered by Dukes Supreme Court))
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (Supreme Court decision addressing standing and commonality in class actions; materially impacts 23(b)(2))
- Gomes v. Avco Corp., 964 F.2d 1330 (2d Cir. 1992) (exhaustion inquiry focuses on whether facts support theories of relief within EEOC charge scope)