Quick Summary
Nathaniel Mosley (plaintiff) and nine others sued General Motors Corporation (defendant) and their union for alleged racial and color-based employment discrimination. They claimed various discriminatory practices and sought collective legal recourse.
The case questioned whether these individuals could join in one lawsuit under Rule 20(a) despite having different specific grievances. The appellate court ruled they could proceed jointly due to common underlying allegations of discriminatory policy.
Facts of the Case
Nathaniel Mosley (plaintiff) and nine other individuals brought a lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (defendant), and their union, the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agriculture Implement Workers of America. The plaintiffs accused their employer and union of engaging in racial and color-based discrimination.
Each plaintiff had previously filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which found reasonable cause to believe that discriminatory practices had occurred. The EEOC’s findings allowed them to seek legal action in federal court. The lawsuit contained twelve counts, alleging various discriminatory practices by General Motors, such as biased promotions, retaliatory actions against protesting employees, improper hiring based on race and sex, wrongful discharges, and discrimination in granting relief time.
The Union was also accused of discrimination in granting relief time and not pursuing grievances properly. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, back pay, attorneys fees, and costs, both individually and as class representatives.
Procedural History
- The plaintiffs filed a complaint with the EEOC against General Motors and the Union.
- The EEOC issued a reasonable cause finding and notified the plaintiffs of their right to file a lawsuit.
- Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in federal district court.
- The district court ordered the severance of individual claims into separate actions, questioning the manageability and commonality of the joint action.
- The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to sever the individual claims.
I.R.A.C. Format
Issue
Whether the plaintiffs could join together in one action to assert their rights collectively against General Motors and the Union for alleged discriminatory employment practices.
Rule of Law
Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the joinder of parties in one action if they assert a right to relief arising from the same transaction or occurrence, or series thereof, and if there is any question of law or fact common to all parties involved.
Reasoning and Analysis
The appellate court analyzed whether the plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same transaction or occurrence and whether there were common questions of law or fact. The court noted that all plaintiffs alleged injury from a general policy of discrimination by General Motors and the Union, satisfying the first requirement for joinder under Rule 20(a).
The court also determined that the existence of a discriminatory policy was a question common to all plaintiffs, satisfying the second requirement for joinder. Thus, it concluded that severance was not necessary, and separate trials on damages could be conducted if needed after determining common questions.
Conclusion
The appellate court reversed the district court’s decision that disallowed joint actions and remanded with directions to permit the plaintiffs to proceed jointly. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s withholding of a decision on the class action’s propriety pending further discovery.
Key Takeaways
- Rule 20(a) permits the joining of parties in a lawsuit when they claim rights relating to the same series of transactions or occurrences and share common legal or factual questions.
- A company-wide policy alleged to discriminate against employees can be considered a series of transactions or occurrences under Rule 20(a).
- Commonality under Rule 20(a) does not require that all questions of law and fact be common among all parties.
Relevant FAQs of this case
What criteria must be met for a joinder of parties under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure?
Under Rule 20(a), parties can be joined in a single legal action if they assert rights related to the same transaction or occurrence, or series thereof, and there are questions of law or fact common to all parties involved.
- For example: If several tenants face eviction due to a landlord’s discriminatory housing policy, they may join together in one lawsuit because their claims arise from the same policy (a common transaction) and share legal questions regarding discrimination laws.
How does commonality in class action suits differ from that required for joinder of parties?
In a class action, commonality requires that class members share at least one issue whose resolution will affect all members uniformly, whereas joinder under Rule 20(a) is less stringent, only needing any common question of law or fact, not necessarily shared by all parties.
- For example: Imagine a defective home appliance that causes injuries to multiple users; while each user’s injury may be different, the common legal issue of the manufacturer’s liability for the defect could allow for a class action.
When might a court decide to sever joined claims into separate trials, and what factors are considered?
A court may opt to sever joined claims if it determines that joint proceedings would compromise efficiency or fairness. Factors considered include potential jury confusion, differences in evidence required for each claim, and whether any claims would unduly delay the resolution others.
- For example: If employees from different company departments allege wage discrimination but the nature of their job functions and the evidence required to prove the claims vary significantly, a court might sever the claims to streamline proceedings and ensure focused adjudication.
References
Was this case brief helpful?