Allen v. City of New York

Background

Annette Birdsong and Herbert Richardson, identified as former employees of Jacobi Medical Center, brought employment-discrimination claims against the City of New York and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. They alleged that, during a 2017 reorganization, defendants discriminated against employees who were over 40 and non-white. The plaintiffs moved under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to certify a class for most, but not all, of their claims. The court construed the motion as not covering the plaintiffs’ claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or for breach of contract because the plaintiffs did not dispute defendants’ arguments concerning those claims.

Class-Certification Requirements

Rule 23(a) requires a proposed class to satisfy numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy-of-representation requirements. Rule 23(b)(3), the provision on which plaintiffs relied, also requires that common legal or factual questions predominate over individual questions and that a class action be the superior method for resolving the dispute.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(a), particularly commonality and typicality. Plaintiffs’ theory treated the 2017 Managerial Efficiency Improvement Initiative, or MEII, as a single program. But the record showed two different MEIIs—one in February 2017 and another in June 2017—with significant differences. The June initiative had a standardized organizational chart and a specific employee-reduction target, while the February initiative had neither. Different people drafted and implemented the two initiatives, and department leaders had broad discretion to identify positions for elimination.

Because of those differences and the individual decision-makers’ discretion, the court found no common explanation connecting all of the challenged employment decisions. It also found that Birdsong’s and Richardson’s claims were not typical of the proposed class because they held only two of the many positions eligible for inclusion, had been hired when they were over 40, and worked under only one of the department leaders who selected positions.

The court further held that plaintiffs could not satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance requirement, even assuming they met Rule 23(a). Individual issues would dominate any common questions, including why and by whom each position was selected, whether bias affected each decision, whether defendants had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, and the amount of each person’s damages.

Disposition

The court DENIED plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. It did not decide the underlying employment-discrimination claims on the merits. The parties were ordered to meet and confer about settlement and future motion practice and to submit a joint letter within two weeks addressing possible mediation and a schedule for motions for summary judgment or to exclude expert testimony. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 70.