Little v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
249 F. Supp. 3d 394
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- WMATA adopted Policy 7.2.3 (effective Feb. 23, 2012; MetroAccess added Jan. 1, 2013) to screen candidates/employees via criminal background checks; the Policy contains multiple appendices (A, B, C, F) that set disqualifying offenses and look‑back periods for different job categories.
- Plaintiffs (African‑American candidates/employees) allege Policy 7.2.3, though facially neutral, has a disparate impact on African Americans by categorically disqualifying applicants for certain past convictions and by disallowing individualized assessment.
- Plaintiffs sought leave to amend, class certification (seeking hybrid Rule 23(b)(2)/(b)(3) relief), and appointment of class counsel; parties also filed Daubert motions to exclude opposing experts.
- The court excluded or limited several expert opinions in part, admitting Dr. Farber’s MetroAccess analysis, excluding Dr. Bendick (damages) and certain portions of Dr. Stixrud’s legal conclusions, and allowing Dr. Siskin subject to later merits‑phase scrutiny.
- The court certified three classes tied to Appendices A, C, and F (but not Appendix B due to lack of a representative), granted (b)(2) injunctive/declaratory class certification on liability, and denied certification under (b)(3) for classwide monetary damages (individual Teamsters hearings contemplated).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a class may be certified challenging Policy 7.2.3 as causing disparate impact | Policy 7.2.3 is a uniform, non‑discretionary screening practice applied to all candidates/contractors and thus raises a common classwide question of disparate impact | WMATA: Policy differentiates among many offenses/positions; each Appendix/conviction type is a separate practice and must be assessed individually | Court certified classes for Appendices A, C, and F under Rule 23(b)(2) (liability/injunctive relief); denied a single combined class because no representative for Appendix B |
| Whether class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary damages is appropriate (predominance/superiority) | Class action is superior and common liability questions predominate; damages computable classwide | WMATA: Individualized inquiries (why a person was not hired, mitigation, contractor records) and damages issues defeat predominance; plaintiffs’ damages expert offers only individual calculations | Court denied (b)(3) certification for monetary relief: common liability may be tried classwide under (b)(2) and individual damages addressed later (Teamsters proceedings) |
| Admissibility of expert statistical evidence (Drs. Farber, Stixrud, Siskin, Bendick) | Plaintiffs’ experts show disparate impact using available data and BISG methods; rebuttal experts respond to methodological critiques | WMATA challenged relevance/reliability, disclosure timeliness, and that some analyses targeted un‑certified classes | Court admitted Farber’s MetroAccess analysis, excluded Farber analyses inconsistent with certified classes, excluded Bendick (unnecessary now and inadequate classwide damages method), struck legal‑conclusion portions of Stixrud, and allowed Siskin (subject to later merits‑phase deposition/Daubert review) |
| Motion to amend the complaint to reflect subclasses | Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint aligning allegations with expert findings and classes | WMATA opposed as unnecessary or untimely | Court denied the pending motion without prejudice as moot and permitted a revised amended complaint consistent with certified classes |
Key Cases Cited
- Beebe v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 129 F.3d 1283 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (WMATA Compact grants broad personnel authority)
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (framework for disparate impact claims and post‑liability individual hearings)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) (statistical proof in disparate impact cases)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (class commonality and (b)(2) injunctive relief principles)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (expert admissibility gatekeeping)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to non‑scientific expert testimony)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (predominance requirement and classwide damages methodology)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (standards for leave to amend pleadings)