Davis v. Cintas Corporation
717 F.3d 476
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Davis sued Cintas for gender discrimination in hiring for service-sales-representatives (SSRs).
- District court denied class certification and granted summary judgment on Davis’s individual claims, except for 2003 claim which was later reversed on appeal.
- Cintas uses a uniform Meticulous Hiring System with objective and subjective criteria across many locations and managers.
- Historical data showed underrepresentation of women in SSR hires prior to 2003; after Meticulous Hiring System implementation, female hires rose but remained limited.
- The district court found the putative class unmanageable and not sufficiently cohesive for Rule 23 certification; the court also found disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims unsuitable for class treatment.
- On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of class certification, reversed and remanded the 2003 disparate-treatment claim, and affirmed judgments on 2004 disparate-treatment and disparate-impact claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the class could be certified under Rule 23(a) and (b) after Dukes | Davis argues system-wide discrimination via subjective decisions is class-wide | Cintas argues variance across locations prevents common questions and the management tier prevents class-wide relief | No class certification; lack of commonality under Dukes |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis's 2004 disparate-treatment claim | Davis contends she was pretexted and underqualified male hires show pretext | Cintas argues route-ride performance justified the decision and no pretext shown | Summary judgment for Cintas affirmed |
| Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Davis's 2004 disparate-impact claim | Meticulous Hiring System caused disparate impact via subjective steps | Cannot identify a separable employment practice; steps are separable and no single practice identified | Disparate-impact claims failed |
| Whether the district court erred in denying summary judgment on Davis's 2003 disparate-treatment claim | Davis shows she was as or more qualified than successful male applicants; data show discrimination | Richards’s reasons were legitimate and non-pretextual | Reversed; 2003 claim survives summary judgment for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits class certification where common questions lack glue across nationwide decisions)
- Falcon v. Gen. Tel. & Supply Co., 457 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court 1982) (commonality requires common contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (Supreme Court 1988) (subjective decisionmaking analyzed under disparate-impact when appropriate)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (Supreme Court 1989) (disparate-impact analysis requires a separable employment practice)
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (Supreme Court 1971) (employment tests must be job-related and consistent with business necessity)
- Albemearle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 425 (Supreme Court 1975) (disparate-impact analysis and availability of alternative practices)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (Supreme Court 2000) (pretext can be inferred from combined prima facie case and rebuttal evidence)
- Phillips v. Cohen, 400 F.3d 388 (6th Cir. 2005) (isolation of specific employment practices in disparate-impact analysis)