Simpson v. Dart

Dist. Ct. erred in denying plaintiff’s motion for class action certification with respect to three proposed subclasses in his Title VII action regarding defendant’s initial written exam, written situational exam and physical fitness test for hiring correctional officers, where plaintiff alleged that he and others were not hired as correctional officers, because said examinations had disparate and negative impact on black applicants. While Dist. Ct. found that plaintiff had failed to satisfy commonality factor for class action certification under Rule 23, Dist. Ct.’s analysis did not clearly delineate its reasoning for declining to certify instant subclasses. Moreover, unlike disparate treatment claims, disparate impact claims have greater likelihood of satisfying commonality factor in certification process, where: (1) focus of said claim is on challenged policy that, according to plaintiff, has disparately impacted class members; and (2) concern as to instant subclasses does not pertain to exercise of discretion by many actors, but rather to uniform administration of standardized tests to each class member. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could not inquire into merits of plaintiff’s disparate impact claims to determine instant commonality issue once plaintiff had identified policy that allegedly resulted in discrimination.