Kassman v. KPMG LLP
925 F. Supp. 2d 453
S.D.N.Y.2013Background
- Five named female plaintiffs sue KPMG LLP and seek class treatment for gender discrimination affecting current/former female professionals.
- The TAC spans numerous claims across Title VII, NYSHRL/NYCHRL, NYSEPA, EPA, NYSEPA, and FMLA, with class claims for women in client-service roles.
- Plaintiffs allege company-wide policies and practices—promotion, pay, and advancement schemes—that disproportionately harm women, including pregnant employees and mothers.
- Individual plaintiffs describe specific adverse actions: pay cuts during maternity leave, demotions on transfer, stalled promotions, harassment, and retaliation.
- KPMG moves to dismiss/strike many class claims under Dukes, strike geographic scope, and sever/misjoin some individual claims; court partial denial and partial grant follow.
- Court assesses Article III standing for Rule 23(b)(2) class; determines ex-employees may have prospective relief standing if reinstatement is sought.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dukes defeats class claims at the pleading stage. | Plaintiffs allege specific HQ policies (e.g., The KPMG Way) show common practice. | Dukes bars class: no common policy or common injury across all members. | Plaintiffs survive to plead common policies; Dukes does not foreclose at this stage. |
| Standing of former employees to seek Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief. | Kassman and Patterson have prospective relief interests via reinstatement. | Former employees generally lack standing for injunctive relief against a former employer. | Former employees may have standing for prospective relief in reinstatement scenarios; some arguments premature pending certification. |
| Extraterritorial reach of NYSHRL/NYCHRL/NYSEPA class claims. | NYSEPA claims nationwide because decisions occur in New York; class includes absentees living/working outside NY. | Statutes do not apply extraterritorially to nonresident/non-working individuals. | Strike NYSHRL/NYSEPA/NYCHRL nationwide claims for non-NY residents/workers; maintained for those within jurisdiction. |
| Sufficiency of disparate-impact allegations post-Dukes. | HQ policies like The KPMG Way allegedly causing broad disparate impact.", | Need identification of a specific facially neutral policy causing impact. | Allegations of targeted HQ policies are sufficient to survive dismissal at this stage. |
| Joinder of plaintiffs' claims under Rule 20(a). | Shared discriminatory policies justify a single proceeding for efficiency. | Joinder may be improper if claims are not sufficiently connected. | Joinder sustained at this stage; discovery may prompt reevaluation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (statutory tolling and class action scope considerations)
- Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 877 F. Supp. 2d 113 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (standing and class certification timing; pleading standards after Dukes)
- Calibuso v. Bank of Am. Corp., 893 F. Supp. 2d 374 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (post-Dukes dismissal denial for class certification on HQ policies)
- Lambert v. Genesee Hosp., 10 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 1993) (retaliation claim pleading standards under FLSA and NY Labor Law)
- In re WorldCom Sec. Litig., 496 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2007) (tolled statute of limitations in class action context (American Pipe rule))