X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Finding that the plaintiffs had satisfied all four requirements of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but failed to meet the stricter test of Rule 23(b), a federal judge in Philadelphia has refused to certify a proposed class action suit against Aramark Corp. brought by a group of black workers who claim they were constantly harassed and unfairly disciplined by their white supervisors. In his 20-page opinion in Barabin v. Aramark, U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner found that while the 10 named plaintiffs share some common legal questions with up to 200 other black Aramark workers, those common questions don’t “predominate” because the suit is seeking both monetary and injunctive relief. Instead, Joyner found that since each worker would be seeking damages, there would be too many individual issues to proceed as a class. “It is clear from the complaint that while all of the plaintiffs aver that they were ‘subjected to frequent harassment and unjustified disciplinary sanctions by Caucasian supervisors not imposed on similarly situated Caucasian employees,’ the circumstances under which those acts of discrimination were committed and the resultant injuries are unique to each individual plaintiff,” Joyner wrote. “The plaintiffs’ individual claims for damages would therefore require individualized evaluations and findings of the facts and defenses,” Joyner wrote. As a result, Joyner concluded that “the plaintiffs’ individual claims would predominate over the common issue of whether the disciplinary measures taken against them were discriminatory in nature.” The ruling is a victory for attorneys Jonathan B. Langel, David S. Fryman and Leslie C. Safran of Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll. The suit was filed in August 2001 by attorneys Joel I. Fishbein of Abrahams Loewenstein & Bushman and Stephen A. Whinston, Jonathan Auerbach and Shanon J. Carson of Philadelphia-based Berger & Montague on behalf of 10 service workers employed by Aramark at the Presbyterian Medical Center in Philadelphia. Philadelphia-based Aramark is the nation’s largest provider of outsourcing services. In 2000, it posted more than $7 billion in revenue. The company ranks 258th on the Fortune 500 list and is the 23rd-largest employer on the list. The suit alleges that the Aramark service workers at Presbyterian — whose jobs include transporting patients, distributing linen and cleaning rooms and floors — are almost all black and that their white managers harass them through “an oppressive pattern of unfair and unjustified discipline.” Four of the named plaintiffs claim they were fired on the basis of fabricated disciplinary charges. The real reason for the firings, the suit says, is that all four had voiced objections to the racially discriminatory discipline. The suit alleges that Aramark employees in other departments at the hospital, who are mostly white, are not subjected to the unfair discipline. Joyner found that the suit easily met all four of the requirements of Rule 23(a) — numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy of representation.But Joyner found that the plaintiffs couldn’t clear any of the hurdles of Rule 23(b), which includes predominance. The key problem, Joyner found, is that the suit seeks both injunctive relief and monetary damages for Aramark’s alleged violations of Title VII and Section 1981. Joyner found that “neither the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide any guidance for determining when injunctive and/or declaratory relief is the primary relief sought in actions such as this one where both injunctive relief and monetary damages are being pursued.” But the 5th Circuit has fashioned a test, Joyner found, and several trial judges within the 3rd Circuit have adopted it. In Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., the 5th Circuit held that “monetary relief predominates in (b)(2) class actions unless it is incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief.” Joyner found that “incidental damages,” have been defined as those “that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief.” In deciding whether damages are “incidental,” Joyner found that courts consider three factors:

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.