Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
925 F. Supp. 2d 875
M.D. Tenn.2013Background
- This case concerns Wal-Mart's Partial Motion to Dismiss in Part Plaintiffs’ Complaint to strike/limit Region 43 class claims arising under Title VII.
- The original Dukes action certified a nationwide female-pay/promotion class; the Supreme Court rejected commonality for nationwide class in Dukes (2011).
- Following Dukes, American Pipe tolling was implicated to toll limitations for putative class members in follow-on actions seeking narrower subclasses.
- Phipps asserts Region 43 subclass claims; the court must decide tolling applicability and class-certification viability.
- Texas’s Odie decision and Florida Love proceedings are relevant as sister actions exploring tolling and subclass certification.
- The court ultimately holds that, under Andrews v. Orr, American Pipe tolling does not extend to this follow-on subclass action, so Region 43 claims are time-barred, and dismisses the class claims with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether American Pipe tolling extends to follow-on subclass actions | Phipps argues tolling should apply to subclass actions. | Wal-Mart argues tolling does not extend to follow-on class actions after denial of certification. | No; tolling does not extend under Andrews; region subclass claims time-barred. |
| Whether Andrews remains good law post-Shady Grove and Bayer | Plaintiffs contend Andrews should be refined/overruled by newer decisions. | Wal-Mart maintains Andrews controls; tolling not extended. | Court acknowledges uncertainty but applies Andrews to dismiss class claims. |
| Whether Region 43 class allegations are timely due to notice from Dukes | Region 43 notices/Tolling should preserve rights to pursue subclass relief. | Wal-Mart contends notices do not salvage tolling for new class actions. | Not accepted; tolling limited under Andrews; claims time-barred. |
| Whether plaintiffs may co-tail EEOC charges to time-barred claims | Coattailing should allow tolling for region subclass. | Coattailing not permitted for follow-on subclass claims. | Not reached as tolling dispositive; class claims time-barred anyway. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (U.S. 1974) (tolls limitations for all class members during pendency of certification)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (U.S. 1983) (extends tolling to former putative class members filing individual actions)
- Andrews v. Orr, 851 F.2d 146 (6th Cir. 1988) (holds pendency of prior class action does not toll class claims under Rule 23 (original Andrews rule))
- Korwek v. Hunt, 827 F.2d 874 (2d Cir. 1987) (limits extension of American Pipe to follow-on class actions)
- Salazar-Calderon v. Presidio Valley Farmers Ass’n, 765 F.2d 1334 (5th Cir. 1985) (discusses tolling after denial of class certification in related actions)
- Robbins v. Fluor Corp., 835 F.2d 213 (9th Cir. 1987) (initially suggests limits on tolling for subsequent class actions)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs., P.A. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (U.S. 2010) (conflicts between state law and Federal Rules; Rule 23 preemption issue)
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 131 S. Ct. 2368 (U.S. 2011) (addresses relitigation and preclusion; limits on class action relitigation across courts)