Opinion
CIVIL ACTION No. 00-2394-KHV
October 22, 2002
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Warren K. Pyles brings employment discrimination and retaliation claims against The Boeing Company ("Boeing") under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. as amended ("Title VII") and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 1983. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's Motion To Join Plaintiffs (Doc. #187) filed August 22, 2002. For reasons stated below, the Court overrules plaintiff's motion.
Plaintiff asks the Court to join his case for trial with Butler v. Boeing, Case No. 01-2433-KHV. Rule 42(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., permits a joint trial of actions involving a common question of law or fact. In addition, Rule 20(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., allows plaintiffs to join claims if they assert rights which (1) arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) involve common questions of law or fact. The purpose of Rule 20(a) is "to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes, thereby preventing multiple lawsuits." 7 Charles Alan Wright, et al., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1652, at 395 (3d ed. 2001).
The Court exercises discretion in deciding whether to consolidate actions for trial. See Shump v. Balka, 574 F.2d 1341, 1344 (10th Cir. 1978). In doing so, the Court considers whether consolidation would best serve judicial economy. See Johnson v. Unified Gov't, No. 99-2407-JWL, 1999 WL 1096038, at *1 (D.Kan. Nov. 16, 1999).
Plaintiff asserts that both he and Mr. Butler claim that defendant denied them promotions, overtime, shift changes, temporary assignments and lateral transfers for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons. See Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Join Plaintiffs (Doc. #188) filed August 22, 2002 at 1. Plaintiff admits that the trial in each case would focus on the separate work history of each plaintiff, but he contends that they should be allowed to present their claims together because they would have been able to do so if they had not withdrawn from a class action suit which is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See id. at 2. Plaintiff also asserts that the same attorney will represent him and Mr. Butler at trial.
On October 10, 2002, Glenn Anderson, II entered an appearance for both plaintiffs.
Plaintiff fails to show that consolidation will best serve judicial economy. Plaintiff broadly alleges that both cases involve a company-wide policy or practice of discrimination, but he cites no specific facts to support this claim. Instead, plaintiff agrees that the focus of each case will be the separate work histories of both plaintiffs. Unless plaintiffs can establish a factual link — which they have not done to date — evidence regarding defendant's treatment of one plaintiff will likely be inadmissible with respect to the other plaintiff's claims. See Figures v. Bd. Of Pub. Utils, 967 F.2d 357, 360-61 (10th Cir. 1992). Under these circumstances, the Court will not consolidate the cases for trial.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Join Plaintiffs (Doc. #187) filed August 22, 2002 be and hereby is OVERRULED.