Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WARREN v. XEROX CORPORATION

United States District Court, E.D. New York


March 11, 2004.

FRANK WARREN et al., Plaintiffs against XEROX CORPORATION, Defendant

The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN GLEESON, District Judge

ORDER

Plaintiffs filed this suit on May 9, 2001, claiming that defendant Xerox Corporation ("Xerox") conducted a continuing pattern and practice of racial discrimination and retaliation against black sales representatives in violation of (1) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., (2) 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq., (3) New York Executive Law § 296, (4) Title 8 of the Administrative Code of New York City, and (5) the California Fair Employment and Housing Act. Plaintiffs have moved for class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. I referred the motion to the Honorable Roanne L. Mann, United States Magistrate Judge, for Report and Recommendation.

Judge Mann issued a Report and Recommendation on January 26, 2004. Despite Xerox's objections,*fn1 I agree with the substance of Judge Mann's thorough Report and Recommendation, and therefore adopt it in full.

  Specifically, I hereby bifurcate the liability and remedial phases of this litigation and certify the following class pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), for liability and class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief on plaintiffs' disparate impact and treatment claims: all black Xerox sales Page 2 representatives who (within the applicable statute of limitations) have been, continue to be, or may in the future be affected by Xerox's alleged pattern and practice of racial discimination in assignments of sales territories, promotions, and compensations.

  I deny at this time plaintiffs' request for certification of their retaliation claims and for the creation of subclasses.

  Rule 23(f), which became effective on December 1, 1998, provides that [a] court of appeals may in its discretion permit an appeal from an order of a district court granting or denying class action certification under this rule if application is made to it within ten days after entry of the order." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(f). According to the note following this provision, the rules drafters contemplated that the decision whether to accept such an appeal is within "the sole discretion" of the court of appeals and can be analogized to the Supreme Court's certiorari power. Id. advisory committee's note on 1998 amendments. The committee note also states that "[t]he district court, having worked through the certification decision, often will be able to provide cogent advice on the factors that bear on the decision whether to permit appeal." Id.

  Toe the extent my advice is useful to the Second Circuit. I recommend against taking an interlocutory appeal of this class certification order. There is no reason to believe that the order will effectively terminate the litigation by forcing Xerox to settle, and as cogently explained in judge Mann's Report and Recommendation, the dispute between the parties does Page 3 not implicate unresolved legal issues. See Plaintiffs Class v. Credit Lyonnais Rouse. Ltd. (In re Sumitomo Copper Litig.), 262 F.3d 134, 139 (2d Cir. 2001).

  So Ordered.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.