18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition 47 modifying the class definition was clear error, given that the ambient-harassment theory was the focal point of the commonality finding in the original order. Id . at 599. The Seventh Circuit held that even if ambient harassment was everywhere in jail complex, Plaintiffs had not demonstrated that it manifested in the same way across all parts of the jail, such that it could be a common question for the class. Id. at 603. The Seventh Circuit further opined that Plaintiffs’ experiences also varied broadly based on where they worked in Defendants’ multiple buildings and departments. The Seventh Circuit concluded without a stronger evidentiary showing, Plaintiffs could not demonstrate that class members working in disparate parts of the massive jail complex had experienced the same work environment. Id . at 604. Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded that Plaintiffs did not share a common question as to whether the severity or pervasiveness of sexual harassment by male inmates created an objectively hostile work environment. Id . Simpson, et al. v. Dart , 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173167 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 13, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of correctional officers, filed a class action alleging that Defendants maintained a hiring practice that included selection and screening practices that adversely affected African-American employment applicants in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23, and the Court denied the motion. Plaintiffs contended that from at least 2013, there was a substantial drop in the number and percentage of African-Americans hired as correctional officers and that Defendants’ hiring selection and screening criteria were not job-related or reliable. Plaintiffs sought to certify a combined class of African- American correctional officer applicants and four additional subclasses, depending on at what point in the application process the applicant was denied hire. The hiring process consists of several steps conducted by two separate entities, the Merit Board and the Sheriff’s Office. The Merit Board had 14 members who served different terms over the class period. The Merit Board’s certification process included: (i) screening for minimum qualifications; (ii) an initial written examination; (iii) a second written examination; (iv) a physical ability test; (v) finger printing and drug testing; (vi) a personal history questionnaire and follow-up interview; and (vii) final review by the Merit Board members. Id . at *5-6. The Court found that Plaintiffs failed to allege a department- wide policy to demonstrate that all hiring decisions were rooted in the same conduct or practice. The Court held that the multiple decision-makers involved in hiring decisions, changes in board members, and different human resource administrators reviewing the candidates’ files would all require individual assessments to determine whether or not the hiring decision was discriminatory. The Court also determined that Plaintiffs failed to establish that the tests were administered in a racially-biased manner. The Court thus found that Plaintiffs failed to allege that the discretionary decisions of many different Merit Board and Sheriff’s Office employees were subject to a common policy or plan that was discriminatory. For these reasons, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. (viii) Eighth Circuit Spatz, et al. v. Lee ’ s Summit R-7 School District, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 228729 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of former female technology specialists and elementary school principals, filed a collective action alleging that Defendant, a school district, enforced a uniform policy and practice of utilizing its salary schedule to pay male employees more than female employees for equal work in violation of the Equal Pay Act. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of a collective action, and the Court granted in part the motion. Plaintiffs initially sought to conditionally certify a collective action consisting of “all current and former female Technology Specialists and Elementary School Assistant Principals of the Lee’s Summit R-7 School District whose salary, during the last three years, was determined by: (i) placement on one of the District’s salary schedules at the time of she was initially hired and/or promoted and/or, (ii) by a subsequent move on the salary schedule.” Id . at *2. Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint that added Teachers to the case, and thus also sought conditional certification of a collective action including Teachers. Defendant argued that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently establish they were similarly-situated to potential collective action members because they could not show their claims arose from a single pay policy. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant’s uniform decision, policy, or plan was "to credit education, experience, and tenure differently, when making salary placement determinations, depending on the sex of the applicant or employee." Id . at *9. In support of their motion, Plaintiffs offered findings reported by defense counsel resulting from their investigation into grievances filed by the named Plaintiff, seven salary review requests filed by other technology specialists and field technology specialists, and grievances filed by four elementary Principals and four salary review requests filed