{"id":573,"date":"2023-06-08T14:11:55","date_gmt":"2023-06-08T18:11:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=573"},"modified":"2023-06-08T14:11:55","modified_gmt":"2023-06-08T18:11:55","slug":"illinois-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-chicago-water-department-race-discrimination-lawsuit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2023\/06\/08\/illinois-federal-court-denies-class-certification-in-chicago-water-department-race-discrimination-lawsuit\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Chicago Water Department Race Discrimination Lawsuit"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/strong><\/em>:<\/strong>\u00a0In <\/em>Edmond, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-4858 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2023),<\/em> Judge Matthew F. Kennelly\u00a0of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of<\/em> Illinois<\/em> denied<\/a>\u00a0a motion for class certification filed by a group of current and former employees alleging workplace race discrimination in violation of state and federal law. The ruling highlights the <\/em>viability of defense positions relative to <\/em>Plaintiffs\u2019 failure to meet the Rule 23 commonality requirement, which was instrumental to defeating their bid for class <\/em>certification.<\/em><\/p>\n

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

Nine African-American workers currently or previously employed by the Chicago Department of Water brought a putative class action against the City of Chicago and several individuals employed by it in 2017, alleging race discrimination and a hostile work environment on behalf of a group of employees. Plaintiffs alleged the existence of an ongoing and pervasive \u201cculture of racism\u201d fostered by organizational leadership across five bureaus and various sub-bureaus, treatment plants, and construction sites. Id.<\/em> at 4. The lawsuit was brought after the City\u2019s Inspector General uncovered emails containing racist exchanges between Department commissioners and deputies, which resulted in resignations of two executives. Id<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs alleged that the hostile work environment included racially offensive language, threatening gestures, and disparate treatment of Black employees in violation of 42 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 1981 and 1983 and Illinois law, and filed a motion to certify a class that included all Black workers employed by the Water Department since 2011 and three sub-classes for individuals who had been eligible for overtime, those with disciplinary infractions, and those who had been denied promotions.<\/p>\n

In 2018, the Court granted Defendants\u2019 partial motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs then brought a motion to amend the complaint in order to drop the individuals from the suit, which was granted without prejudice. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the classes pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

The City argued that because Plaintiffs were unable to establish a shared work environment in their hostile work environment claim due to the Department\u2019s dispersed workforce, Plaintiffs failed to identify a common contention whose resolution would resolve class claims, as required under Rule 23(a)(2)\u2019s commonality element. The Court agreed with this position. It opined that there was no \u201cevidence of common areas shared by all Department employees or instances of harassment broadcast across the entire Department.\u201d Id. <\/em>at 10. The Court found that the experience of putative class members varied across the Department, with individual claims of discrimination ranging from verbal to visual conduct, while others alleged bias in duty assignments or disciplinary actions.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs additionally contended that a pervasive culture of discrimination permeated the Water Department. They cited statements made by members of the city administration and the Inspector General\u2019s investigation, and posited that this was proof of a \u201cde facto <\/em>policy of racism\u201d across the workplaces. Id.<\/em> at 11. The Court was not convinced that this had a uniform impact on all the named Plaintiffs and putative class members to satisfy the commonality question, and it denied the motion for class certification based on Plaintiffs\u2019 failure to meet this threshold under Rule 23(a).<\/p>\n

Likewise, Judge Kennelly rejected Plaintiffs\u2019 arguments for certification of each sub-class based on a pervasively racist culture. The Court concluded that disciplinary, overtime, and promotion decisions were made by individual supervisors based on their personal discretion and varied across the Department, and that Plaintiffs failed to show evidence that the same decision-makers were responsible for such actions. Id. <\/em>at 23. The Court was not convinced by Plaintiffs\u2019 expert witness\u2019 use of statistical data to show a disparate impact, noting that similar evidence had not been sufficient to demonstrate commonality for purposes of class certification in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes<\/em>, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).<\/p>\n

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

The Edmond <\/em>ruling underscores the importance of maintaining and utilizing a well-organized workplace reporting structure and managerial discretion in employment matters in anticipating arguing the absence of Rule 23\u2019s commonality requirement, as seen in the Wal-Mart<\/em> decision. In dismissing all of Plaintiffs\u2019 arguments after finding an absence of a work environment common to all putative class members and no top-down decision-making policy regarding wages and promotions, the Court signals its steady reliance on the well-established standards for these types of claims, providing a valuable reaffirmation to employers\u2019 reliable defense strategies.<\/p>\n

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

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0In Edmond, et al. v. City of Chicago, No. 17-CV-4858 (N.D. Ill. June 6, 2023), Judge Matthew F. Kennelly\u00a0of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied\u00a0a motion for class certification filed by a group of current and former employees alleging … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Chicago Water Department Race Discrimination Lawsuit”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":575,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[7,9],"class_list":["post-573","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions"],"authors":[{"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","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""},{"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","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573","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\/575"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=573"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/573\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=573"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=573"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=573"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=573"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}