Opinion
No. 00-CV-4549.
May 19, 2005
MEMORANDUM
Presently pending is Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2), and the respective responses in opposition thereto of Defendants Union Legal, Anvil Construction Co., A.C. Dellovade, Inc, and Morris Kreitz. Plaintiffs also filed a Reply Brief in support of their motion. Oral argument was held on the motion on May 17, 2005. Upon consideration of the motion for class certification, all replies and sur-replies thereto, and the arguments presented orally, for the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be denied.
Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiffs are African-American members of the Defendant Union International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local # 401 ("Local No. 401"). Plaintiffs filed this action against Local No. 401 and individual steel contractors essentially alleging that Local No. 401 and the steel contractors control all iron working jobs, as well as access to those jobs, in the Delaware Valley. Plaintiffs claim that both individually and collectively, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs in terms of hiring and utilizing African-American ironworkers for local iron working jobs. Plaintiffs further allege that the union utilized discriminatory hiring practices which had a disparate impact on African-Americans to the effect that Caucasian ironworkers with less union membership seniority were hired more frequently, remained on jobs on a longer basis, and were promoted to the detriment of African-American members. Plaintiffs further claim that African-Americans ironworkers and apprentices were underemployed, did not receive health and welfare benefits because they had not worked the requisite number of hours to qualify for such, and did not qualify for retirement annuity benefits because of Defendants' alleged failure to provide them with equal employment opportunities. Plaintiffs Complaint includes counts for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. as amended by the Civil Rights Acts of 1991, as well as Section 1981, and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA").
Prior Litigation
In the matter of Earline Ray, et al. v. Ironworkers Local 401, et al., Civil No. 75-3657 (E.D. Pa. 1975 Green, J.) a plaintiff class consisting of African-American iron workers, Local 401, and several iron worker contractors entered into a Consent Decree in 1982. Under the terms of the Ray Consent Decree, Local 401 and the steel contractors agreed to increase the training, membership and participation, and distribution of jobs to minorities, including African-Americans. The Ray Consent Decree was dissolved in 1997. Plaintiffs herein, however, claim that Local 401 and the Defendant contractors have continued to — via their hiring practices — directly and indirectly discriminate against African-American iron workers by maintaining a predominantly Caucasian workforce. Plaintiffs claim that Local 401 contributed to the alleged discrimination by altering its rule structure and abolishing the use of the Hiring Hall as a source of employment referrals. Plaintiffs allege that after the abolition of the Hiring Hall, the Caucasian foremen then utilized discriminatory hiring practices in selecting ironworkers for available jobs. Plaintiffs also complain that Defendants did not refer African-American apprentices to a reasonable amount of work. They assert that the acts of discrimination created a disparity between the pay, health and welfare benefits, and retirement benefits received by African-American ironworkers.
In Ray, three African-American ironworkers brought a similar class action suit against Local No. 401 and several contractors alleging that the union and the contractors discriminated against minorities in terms of hiring and access to ironworking jobs.
In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek to have the court, inter alia: enter a declaratory judgment that Defendants violated and continue to violate Plaintiff's rights against discrimination; order defendants to obey the mandates of theRay Consent Decree; and, award Plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages for the loss of past and future earnings, loss of professional growth opportunities, and for emotional distress.
Discussion
Plaintiffs now seek to seek to certify a class consisting of African-American members of Local 401 who were ironworkers from 1994 to the present. Defendants oppose the motion and argue, inter alia, that: the purported class representatives lack standing because they have retired as ironworkers; intensive analysis of individual claims is necessary to prove Plaintiffs' allegations of discrimination; the claims of the proposed class are not sufficiently common nor typical; individual issues will predominate over class issues; the proposed class is not sufficiently numerous; the named Plaintiffs lack standing because they are not qualified to do specialty ironworking jobs; and the named Plaintiffs did not seek or desire employment from certain contractors.
In order to be certified, a class must satisfy all four of the following prerequisites under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a): (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Because Plaintiffs seek certification under Rule 23(b)(2) in this matter, they must also show that Defendants have "acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2).
As a threshold matter, Plaintiffs have not established that as the named Plaintiffs they are eligible to represent the proposed class. Consequently, they are not adequate class representatives and the fourth prong of the requirements for class certification has not been satisfied. Plaintiffs Williams and Franklin retired in 2003. Plaintiff Brundage retired in June 2004, however, at oral argument Plaintiffs counsel stated that Mr. Brundage had "un-retired" and reentered the workforce. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for class certification on February 20, 2004, after both Williams and Franklin retired. Because Williams' and Franklin's claims for injunctive and prospective relief were not live at the time Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification, they are ineligible to represent the class and their motion for class certification must be denied. See, Holmes v. Pension Plan of Bethlehem Steel Corp., 213 F.3d 124, 135-36 (3d Cir. 2000 (a plaintiff who lacks the personalized standing to assert similar claims on his own behalf would also lack standing to assert similar claims on behalf of a class.citing Davis v. Thornburgh, 903 F.2d 212, 222 (3d Cir. 1990)). Since two of the named Plaintiffs have retired, they have no personal interest in prospective employment relief, injunctive relief, nor enforcement of the Ray Consent Decree and are ineligible to receive any of the prospective and injunctive employment relief the class seeks. In their prayer for relief Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that Defendants continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs and the proposed class, an order directing Defendants to comply with the mandates of the Ray Consent Decree — which included increased apprenticeship, improvements in job selection and quality of work, and compensatory and punitive damages. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they can adequately represent the class in pursuing the broad requests for relief stated in the Complaint. Even assuming that in Mr. Brundage's present status as an "un-retired" ironworker, he could be properly considered, his claim essentially differs from the proposed class members in that he has had relatively lengthy periods of unavailability due to injury and other personal reasons. Given the aforesaid, deficiencies in the proposed class representatives, the court cannot certify the proposed class. The named Plaintiffs cannot adequately represent the class, however, they will be permitted to pursue their claims for damages as individuals in this action.
An appropriate order follows.