Puffer v. Allstate Insurance
675 F.3d 709
| 7th Cir. | 2012Background
- Puffer sued Allstate on behalf of herself and a putative class alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, alleging pattern-or-practice and disparate impact theories tied to salary, promotion, and training policies with significant managerial discretion.
- The district court denied class certification both initially and after Ledbetter Act developments, finding lack of commonality and predominance.
- Puffer later settled her individual claims; Pell, Howells, and Keith, members of the putative class, intervened to appeal the denials and focus on a disparate impact theory.
- Intervenors asserted that Allstate’s merit-increase policy based on a percentage of base pay and an external market-salary comparison produced gender disparities in earnings between 2002 and 2005.
- The Seventh Circuit concluded intervenors waived their disparate impact claim by not developing it below and only argued pattern-or-practice (intentional discrimination); the district court’s certification denial was affirmed.
- The court did not reach the merits of the disparate impact claim because of waiver and the posture of the case regarding certification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of disparate impact claim on appeal | Puffer developed disparate impact theory in complaint | Claim not adequately developed below; waived | Waiver; claim not preserved for appeal |
| Merits of disparate impact claim if not waived | Allstate's policies had uniform impact disadvantaging women | Policies not shown to be uniform or causally linked to disparities | Would fail on the merits even if not waived |
| Rule 23 requirements for class certification | Pattern-or-practice claim meets commonality/predominance | Heterogeneous class and individualized issues defeat certification | Not reached due to waiver; district court’s denial stands on waiver |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (disparate impact versus pattern-or-practice distinction; framework for discrimination claims)
- Adams v. City of Chicago, 469 F.3d 609 (7th Cir. 2006) (standard for disparate impact proof; business necessity burden)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) (isolation of specific employment practices; causation in disparate impact)
- Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005) (disparate impact requires concrete practice and causal link to disparities)
- Pond v. Michelin North America, Inc., 183 F.3d 592 (7th Cir. 1999) (waiver when arguments are not raised below; shifting your theory on appeal)