Houser v. Pritzker
28 F. Supp. 3d 222
S.D.N.Y.2014Background
- Putative Title VII class action alleging Census Bureau criminal background screening for 2010 Decennial Census temp jobs discriminated by race.
- Plaintiffs challenge (i) 30-day Letter demanding official court docs after namechecks and (ii) Adjudication Criteria used to determine suitability.
- Hiring process involved regional Local Census Offices, initial application, written test, FBI name checks, 30-day Letter, and adjudication before final selection.
- Large scale: over 1.3 million temporary positions; thousands received 30-day Letters; only a small fraction were ultimately hired.
- Adjudication Criteria automatically excluded many with prior arrests; some decisions took months, causing loss of opportunity to be hired.
- Named plaintiffs Houser, Daniels, Rickett-Samuels, Scott, and Desphy have standing; Gonzalez, Riesco, and Kargbo lack standing and are dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of named plaintiffs | Houser et al. had injury-in-fact; Gonzalez, Riesco, Kargbo lacked standing. | All named plaintiffs must show injury-in-fact; some lacked eligibility. | Five plaintiffs have standing; three lack standing and are dismissed. |
| Disparate impact of 30-day Letter and Adjudication Criteria | Disparate impact on African-American/Latino applicants nationwide. | Impact varies by location; defenses should apply broadly. | Disparate-impact question capable of classwide resolution; merits to be determined at liability stage. |
| Class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) | Liability/injunctive relief appropriate for entire class; damages to be addressed via subclasses. | Damages require individualized determinations; notice and manageability concerns. | Liability/injunctive class certified under 23(b)(2) for African-American plaintiffs; damages subclasses not certified under 23(b)(3). |
| Adequacy and typicality of class representatives | Representatives adequately protect class; claims typical in aggregate. | Some representatives’ claims may be atypical or weak as to specific defenses. | Typicality and adequacy satisfied for liability/injunction phase with caveat about Latino representation. |
| Redressability and backpay framework | Backpay potentially redress injuries if liability found. | Backpay may be mitigated by individualized defenses. | Declaratory/injunctive relief redressable; backpay damages not certified at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (Supreme Court 2009) (disparate-impact theory in Title VII context)
- Dukes v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (commonality; classwide resolution where uniform practice exists)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S. 2013) (predominance requirement; class damages model must isolate theory of liability)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (U.S. 1993) (injury-in-fact focused on denial of equal opportunity rather than ultimate benefit)
- Bakke ( Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke), 438 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1978) (injury-in-fact related to denial of opportunity)