926 F. Supp. 2d 8
D.D.C.2013Background
- African-American Special Agents sue the Secret Service alleging a pattern and practice of discrimination in promotions to GS-14 and GS-15.
- plaintiffs rely on the Secret Service Merit Promotion Program (MPP) as the mechanism producing discriminatory outcomes.
- Class certification seeks to include all current/former African-American SAs who bid for GS-14 (1995–2004) or GS-15 (1995–2005) promotions and were not promoted on their first bid, excluding certain high-level officials.
- Court previously denied class certification in Moore III for lack of typicality and conflicts; plaintiffs narrowed the class definition accordingly.
- Plaintiffs offer Dr. Charles Mann’s statistics to show adverse impact of MPP on African-American SAs; defendant moves to exclude under Rule 702/Daubert.
- Court denies the defendant’s motion to exclude Mann, and grants class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) based on predominance and superiority, with notice and counsel appointments to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Mann under Rule 702/Daubert | Mann is qualified; statistics are relevant to pattern/impact. | Mann’s methods are unreliable, not properly grounded in data. | Mann's testimony admissible; reliability established. |
| Rule 23 prerequisites for class certification | Class meets numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy; predominant issues common. | Defendant disputed numerosity, commonality, and typicality; suggested conflicts. | Class certified under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3). |
| Commonality and predominance in disparate treatment/impact claims | Statistical and anecdotal evidence show common discriminatory policy. | Some individual questions could defeat predominance. | Common questions predominate; class-wide proof viable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Teamsters, Int'l Bhd. of v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (establishes pattern-and-practice framework for discrimination cases)
- Palmer v. Schultz, 815 F.2d 84 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (disparity proof in statistical discrimination cases; one- vs two-tailed tests guidance)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (Sup. Ct. 1993) (gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440 (1982) (rejects bottom-line defenses; supports use of component-level disparities)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (Sup. Ct. 1988) (disparate treatment standard; intent required for discrimination claims)
- Segar v. Smith, 738 F.2d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (statistical evidence admissible to show pattern-and-practice discrimination)
- Anderson v. Zubieta, 180 F.3d 329 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (disparate-impact proof standards in Title VII context)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (class certification standard and commonality under Rule 23)