79-3112 | 9th Cir. | Feb 23, 1984
726 F.2d 1366" court="9th Cir." date_filed="1984-02-23" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/charles-l-jordan-v-county-of-los-angeles-430937?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="430937">726 F.2d 1366
36 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 1592
Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 79-3112.
United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
Feb. 23, 1984.
Alan Terakawa, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Walter Cochran-Bond, A. Thomas Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
SECOND ORDER AMENDING OPINION
(Opinion, Aug. 18, 1983, 11 Cir.1983, 713 F.2d 503" court="9th Cir." date_filed="1984-01-19" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/charles-l-jordan-plaintiff-appellant-v-county-of-los-angeles-defendant-appellee-422138?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="422138">713 F.2d 503)
Before TANG, SCHROEDER and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
The Order Amending Opinion filed January 19, 1984,* is withdrawn.
The opinion filed August 18, 1983, is amended as follows:
After the fourth paragraph of the opinion, the following paragraph shall be inserted:
Falcon does not prohibit "across the board" class formation in every instance. See [General Telephone Co. v.] Falcon [457 U.S. 147" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1982-06-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/general-telephone-co-of-southwest-v-falcon-110737?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110737">457 U.S. 147], 102 S.Ct. [2364] at 2371 n. 15 [72 L. Ed. 2d 740" court="SCOTUS" date_filed="1982-06-14" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/general-telephone-co-of-southwest-v-falcon-110737?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="110737">72 L.Ed.2d 740] (Across the board actions aimed at a specific hiring practice are permissible under Rule 23). However, even though it would be permissible to form a class of all black applicants challenging a specified hiring practice, we must conclude after recomputation of the actual number of rejected black applicants, that such a class in the present case would still fail under the numerosity requirement of Rule 23.
The only change made by the order of January 19, 1984, was the addition of a new paragraph after the fourth paragraph of the original opinion; the paragraph so added is revised by the second order of amendment