Williams v. Fresenius Medical Care North America

Full title: VERNON WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH…

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Southern Division

Date published: Apr 16, 2007

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0632-BH-C (S.D. Ala. Apr. 16, 2007)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 04-0632-BH-C.

April 16, 2007

ORDER

WILLIAM HAND, Senior District Judge

This action is before the Court on plaintiffs' objections (Doc. 147) to the special instruction number "2" on the Court's "Verdict Form." According to the plaintiffs, "[this] instruction/interrogatory effectively compels the jury to function as a `super personnel department' and determine which one, if any, of the Plaintiffs should have received the challenged promotional opportunity." Despite plaintiffs' protestations to the contrary, it is well established in the law that "among multiple job applicants who fail to secure the position because of discrimination, only those who can prove that they would have gotten the position but for the discrimination can recover compensatory damages." Arnold v. United States Dept. Of the Interior, 213 F.3d 193, 197 (5^th Cir. 2000). It is true that the Eleventh Circuit in United States v. City of Miami, 195 F.3d 1292 (11^th Cir. 1999), applied a pro-rata class wide remedy. It did so, however, only because that class action litigation involved twenty-three police lieutenant candidates for only one promotion at issue and twelve sergeant candidates for only one promotion at issue and because "it is difficult, if not altogether impossible years later, to discern which of these candidates would have been promoted." 195 F.3d at 1299 (emphasis in original). The Eleventh Circuit itself distinguished the City of Miami case from Taxman v. Board of Educ. 91 F.3d 1547 (3^rd Cir. 1996) which "involved two individuals for one position, and a probability of retention (fifty percent) closely approximate to a more likely than not standard, rather than a very large class vying for only one position." In the case at bar, there was but one promotion to Inventory Supervisor available and only five candidates dispute the defendant's selection. This case does not involve the "quagmire of hypothetical judgments" at issue in the city of Miami case and is more than amenable to the application of the "more likely than not" standard.

It is therefore ORDERED that plaintiffs' objections to the Court's verdict form be and are hereby OVERRULED.