McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482

Plaintiffs allege Merrill Lynch engaged in racial discrimination in employment under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
They seek class certification for common disparate-impact issues and injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4).
District court denied certification; plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and later sought Rule 23(f) relief from the denial.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) changed the landscape for class certification in employment discrimination cases.
Merrill Lynch’s challenged policies include broker teaming and account distributions that may have disparate impact on black brokers.
Court ultimately holds that limited class-wide injunctive relief and disparate-impact determination are appropriate.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of Rule 23(f) appeal	Renewed motion based on Wal-Mart justifies timely appeal.	Second motion is untimely; cannot extend Rule 23(f) deadline via reconsideration.	Timeliness affirmed; leave to appeal properly granted.
Appropriateness of class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and (c)(4)	Disparate-impact common issues predominate; class treatment efficient.	Wal-Mart shows no common issue; case resembles individualized determinations.	Class certification appropriate for injunctive relief and common issues.
Wal-Mart relevance to company-wide policies	Company-wide teaming and distribution policies create class-wide disparate impact.	Discretion at local level dominates; no common policy effect.	Wal-Mart supports class-wide evaluation of the policies’ disparate impact.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (limits on class certification based on common issues in employment discrimination)
Mejdrech v. Met-Coil Systems Corp., 319 F.3d 910 (7th Cir. 2003) (mass-tort-like class action considerations; economies of scale in common issues)
In re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 288 F.3d 1012 (7th Cir. 2002) (concerns about resolution of common issues in mass actions)
Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir. 1995) (mass action considerations and common issues in certification)
Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir. 2006) (new-factor arguments in renewals of certification motions)
Asher v. Baxter Int’l Inc., 505 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2007) (timeliness of interlocutory appeals under Rule 23(f))
Blair v. Equifax Check Services, Inc., 181 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 1999) (timeliness and scope of Rule 23(f) appeals)
John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 552 U.S. 130 (U.S. 2008) (jurisdictional limits and statutory deadlines treatment)
Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (U.S. 2011) (interpretation of deadlines as jurisdictional versus claims of competence)