{"id":123,"date":"2022-10-13T10:08:21","date_gmt":"2022-10-13T14:08:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=123"},"modified":"2023-07-05T15:27:15","modified_gmt":"2023-07-05T19:27:15","slug":"montana-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-gender-discrimination-litigation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2022\/10\/13\/montana-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-gender-discrimination-litigation\/","title":{"rendered":"Montana Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Gender Discrimination Litigation"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/em>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Michael DeMarino<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/em><\/strong> \u2013 In Cole, et al. v. Montana University System, at al<\/em>., 21-CV-88 (D. Mont. Oct. 3, 2022), the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana recently denied<\/a> certification of a Title IX class action alleging discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex.\u00a0 The decision in Cole<\/em> is an important one for employers, as it is a reminder that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes<\/em>, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), is still a major obstacle to class certification of broad discrimination claims.\u00a0 Companies and their corporate counsel are well-served to heed the lessons of Cole <\/em>and center their class certification defense strategy around the commonality requirement articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Background Of The Case <\/strong><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs were a group of women suing Defendants for alleged violations of Title IX and sought to certify a class of approximately 76 women who allegedly experienced harassment, retaliation, and\/or discrimination on the basis of their sex.\u00a0 Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants either forced them to resign, terminated their positions, or limited their options for professional growth. Id.<\/em> at 3-5.<\/p>\n

Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants fostered a \u201cgood ol\u2019 boys club\u201d culture, favoring male athletes and employees, while excluding Plaintiffs from participating in activities and benefits regularly afforded to their male counterparts. Id.<\/em> at 3-9.<\/p>\n

Against this backdrop, Plaintiffs alleged that a \u201cretaliatory culture blossomed\u201d and that all Plaintiffs experienced direct retaliation or the fear of retaliation for speaking out against Defendants’ alleged discriminatory conduct. Id<\/em>. at 8-9.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Class Certification Ruling <\/strong><\/p>\n

After the parties filed competing motion papers in support of class certification, and to deny class certification, the Court issued a lengthy and thorough order, which ruled that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy the requirements for class certification. At the heart of the Court\u2019s analysis was Rule 23(a)\u2019s commonality requirement, which ultimately drove the Court\u2019s decision to deny class certification.<\/p>\n

Analyzing the evidence and the parties\u2019 submissions, the Court noted that Plaintiffs\u2019 claims appeared to be too disparate to be resolved in one stroke, which is key to satisfying Rule 23(a)\u2019s commonality requirement. In reaching that conclusion, the Court relied extensively on the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s decision in\u00a0Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes<\/em>, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). Specifically, the Court found that Plaintiffs failed to identify an employment practice that ties together the putative class members to satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s reasoning in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. <\/em><\/p>\n

Plaintiffs, for their part, argued that the Ninth Circuit had adopted a \u201cpermissive view of commonality\u201d in employment discrimination claims and that the existence of shared legal issues with divergent factual predicates was sufficient to satisfy commonality. The Court, however, rejected this argument. It opined that its analysis was \u201cconstrained\u201d by Wal-Mart Store, Inc<\/em>. Id.<\/em> at 17.<\/p>\n

The Court reasoned that, according to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,<\/em> commonality requires both a shared legal theory and shared facts such that determination of one claim can answer all others. Citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc<\/em>., the Court noted that there are only two mechanisms to bring a class claim alleging broad discrimination, including: (1) show that the employer used a biased testing procedure to evaluate potential employees; or (2) provide significant proof that the employer operated under a general policy of discrimination.<\/p>\n

Based on its analysis, the Court held that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Defendants acted under a general policy of discrimination and the injuries alleged required distinct inquiries into each Plaintiff\u2019s circumstances, qualifications, and the alleged discrimination.<\/p>\n

For similar reasons, the Court also concluded that Plaintiffs could not satisfy Rule 23(b)\u2019s predominance requirement because individualized issues were more prevalent than common ones and Defendants\u2019 liability was not subject to common proof.<\/p>\n

As a result, the Court denied Plaintiffs\u2019 motion for class certification without prejudice.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

The ruling in Cole<\/em> underscores the importance that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes<\/em> plays in employment discrimination cases. At times, the Court was sympathetic to Plaintiffs, and recognized the inherent evidentiary problems in broad employment discrimination cases. The Court even lamented the \u201charsh nature of the standard as imposed on a discrimination case.\u201d\u00a0Id.<\/em> \u00a0Nevertheless, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc<\/em>. proved to be too much of an obstacle to Plaintiffs\u2019 class certification theories.<\/p>\n

The lesson from this decision is that employers should center their class certification defense strategy on the key holdings in Wal-Mart Stores,<\/em> Inc<\/em>., particularly the fact that commonality requires both a shared legal theory and shared facts.\u00a0 Cole <\/em>teaches that because it is somewhat easier for plaintiffs to assert shared legal theories, employers should focus on divergent facts. <\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Michael DeMarino Duane Morris Takeaways \u2013 In Cole, et al. v. Montana University System, at al., 21-CV-88 (D. Mont. Oct. 3, 2022), the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana recently denied certification of a Title IX class action alleging discrimination and harassment on the … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Montana Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Gender Discrimination Litigation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30,7,9],"class_list":["post-123","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Defense","first_name":"Class Action","job_title":"","user_url":"","description":""},{"term_id":7,"user_id":575,"is_guest":0,"slug":"gmaatman","display_name":"Gerald L. Maatman, Jr.","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2022\/09\/maatmangerald-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Maatman Jr.","first_name":"Gerald L.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/geraldmaatman.html","description":"Read Gerald's bio.<\/a>"},{"term_id":9,"user_id":576,"is_guest":0,"slug":"jariley","display_name":"Jennifer A. Riley","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2023\/08\/rileyjennifer-100x100.jpg","author_category":"","last_name":"Riley","first_name":"Jennifer A.","job_title":"","user_url":"https:\/\/www.duanemorris.com\/attorneys\/jenniferriley.html","description":"Read Jennifer's bio.<\/a>"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=123"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=123"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}