Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors v. City of New York

Background

Plaintiffs are current and former members of the Emergency Medical Services Bureau of the New York City Fire Department and three representative unions. They allege that the City of New York engaged in discriminatory pay practices, suppressed wages, and denied employment opportunities based on sex, gender, and/or race, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

The plaintiffs allege that EMS and Fire Bureau first responders perform substantially equal work but that EMS employees receive substantially lower salaries and less-generous overtime, pension, disability, medical, dental, line-of-duty death, and educational benefits. They also rely on alleged racial, gender, and compensation differences between the EMS and Fire workforces.

Requested Class and Subclasses

The plaintiffs sought certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) of a class consisting of people employed by the City in specified EMS Bureau positions—including emergency medical technicians, paramedics, lieutenants, captains, deputy chiefs, and division commanders or chiefs—when the action began or at any time during the preceding three-year period.

They also sought two subclasses: a Race Subclass consisting of class members who identify as non-white, and a Sex/Gender Subclass consisting of class members who identify as female.

Class-Certification Analysis

The court found that the proposed class and subclasses satisfied numerosity and ascertainability. The plaintiffs estimated that the class included approximately 4,500 to 5,000 members, with approximately 2,560 to 2,840 members in the Race Subclass and approximately 1,170 to 1,300 members in the Sex/Gender Subclass. The court stated that employment and pay records could identify members using objective criteria.

The court also found commonality, predominance, and typicality. The plaintiffs presented the alleged centralized policies and practices as affecting EMS employees across ranks, assignments, tenure, and training. The court concluded that differences in job duties and individual damages did not eliminate common questions about whether the alleged policies existed and violated federal or state law.

The court declined to resolve the City’s argument that EMS and Fire first responders were not adequate comparators for the discrimination claims at the class-certification stage. It stated that deciding that issue would improperly turn the certification motion into a motion for summary judgment and that merits questions should be considered only as relevant to the Rule 23 inquiry. The court found that the plaintiffs had offered significant proof of common policies, statistical disparities, expert analyses, and evidence concerning the alleged relationship between those policies and the disparities.

The court further found that a class action was the superior method for resolving the dispute. It noted the risk of inconsistent decisions, the burden of numerous individual lawsuits, the absence of identified competing litigation, and the City’s lack of opposition to superiority. The court also found that the lead plaintiffs’ interests did not conflict with those of the class and that their counsel was qualified and experienced enough to represent the class.

Appointment of Class Counsel

Under Rule 23(g), the court considered the Kurland Group’s investigation of the claims, experience with employment-discrimination class actions and complex litigation, knowledge of the applicable law, and resources committed to the case. The court found that the firm satisfied the standard and would fairly and adequately represent the class and subclasses.

Disposition

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class and subclasses and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to appoint the Kurland Group as class counsel. The order did not decide the ultimate merits of the alleged discrimination claims.