Duskin v. Department of Human Services
304 Mich. App. 645
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Minority-male employees (African-American, Hispanic, Arab, Asian) of Michigan Department of Human Services alleged race/ethnicity and gender discrimination in promotions to supervisory/management roles beginning in 2003.
- Plaintiffs relied on an internal DHS memo and Leadership Academy statistics asserting a department-wide disparity and recommending remedial practices; some class members applied and were denied promotions, others allegedly did not apply due to fear of discrimination.
- Plaintiffs sought class certification of all minority male DHS employees (about 586 after opt-outs) to obtain injunctive relief, promotions, and monetary relief.
- Trial court certified the class, finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority satisfied. The Department moved for summary disposition; certification was defended on remand after this Court previously reversed and the Michigan Supreme Court instructed reconsideration in light of Henry v Dow Chem Co.
- The Court of Appeals reversed certification, holding plaintiffs failed to prove each MCR 3.501(A)(1) prerequisite: no showing that a sizeable number of class members suffered actual injury, lack of a single, classwide theory or actor of discrimination, representatives not shown typical for all claims, and inadequacy/superiority concerns given individualized issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity | Class of ~586 minority males is too large for joinder; all have interest in preventing discrimination | Plaintiffs failed to show a sizeable number of class members actually suffered injury or applied for promotions | Reversed: plaintiffs did not show objective evidence that a sizeable number suffered actual injury; numerosity not satisfied |
| Commonality | Department-wide "culture of discrimination" and Leadership Academy disparity present common questions | Claims rest on mixed theories (racial, ethnic, gender) and different methods/actors, so common questions do not predominate | Reversed: lack of a single common contention capable of classwide resolution; commonality not satisfied |
| Typicality | Named plaintiffs were denied Leadership Academy selection and thus typify class harms | Representatives do not share the same essential characteristics for all asserted types/methods of discrimination | Reversed: representatives not shown typical of the broad class claims |
| Adequacy | Named plaintiffs share unified goal to end discrimination; counsel will represent class | Plaintiffs offered no evidence counsel is qualified nor that there are no conflicts among class members | Reversed: trial court erred by accepting bare assertions; adequacy not shown |
| Superiority | Class adjudication is superior to many individual suits for consistent relief | Individualized questions will predominate given varied claims, actors, and methods of discrimination | Reversed: case unmanageable as a class action; superiority not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Dow Chem. Co., 484 Mich 483 (2009) (endorses proper class-certification analysis and rejects an overly "rigorous" standard)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requires a contention capable of classwide resolution)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (typicality and commonality principles in class actions)
- Zine v. Chrysler Corp., 236 Mich App 261 (1999) (Michigan class-certification standards and principles)
- Mich. Ass'n of Chiropractors v. Blue Care Network of Mich., Inc., 300 Mich App 577 (2013) (certification improper where membership depends on subjective reasons for inaction)