Luanna Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
733 F.3d 105
4th Cir.2013Background
- Appellants are 51 named plaintiffs and a putative class of female Family Dollar store managers alleging pay discrimination.
- Counts I, II, and IV assert disparate impact, disparate treatment under Title VII, and a claim under the Equal Pay Act respectively.
- The district court granted Family Dollar’s 12(c)/12(f)/23(d)(1)(D) motion to dismiss/strike class claims and denied leave to amend.
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) and its commonality standard heavily influenced the court’s reasoning.
- Appellants sought to amend to add four company-wide policies alleged to drive disparate impact via centralized control.
- The panel reversed in part and remanded to determine whether the proposed amended complaint satisfies Rule 23 class-certification requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Wal-Mart preclude class certification here? | Appellants argue centralized corporate controls may satisfy commonality under Wal-Mart. | Family Dollar contends Wal-Mart forecloses class treatment due to subjective decisions at store level. | Wal-Mart does not per se foreclose; context and high-level policies may permit common questions. |
| Whether proposed amendment raises common questions under Rule 23 after Wal-Mart | Amendment discloses four company-wide policies causing uniform impact. | Amendment rehashes an improper theory and would be unwieldy and prejudicial. | District court erred in denying leave to amend; amended pleading could meaningfully affect commonality analysis. |
| Whether denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion on prejudice, bad faith, or futility | Amendment simply elaborates on existing claims and remedies; not prejudicial or futile. | Amendment changes theory late in litigation, causing prejudice and new discovery burdens. | District court abused discretion on all three grounds; remanded to assess proposed amendment under Rule 23. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (commonality requires a 'glue' tying individual claims to a common question)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) (pleading standard requiring plausible claims)
- McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012) (company-wide policies can support class certification under Wal-Mart framework)
- Bolden v. Walsh Constr. Co., 688 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2012) (discretionary decisions at sites may defeat nationwide class certification)