Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
April 26, 2018, Decided; April 26, 2018, Filed
Civil Action No. 99-2979 (EGS); Civil Action No. 01-1513 (EGS)
[*285] MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiffs — seventy-one African-American current or former employees or applicants [*286] for employment at defendant National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("Amtrak") — allege that [**5] Amtrak engaged in racial discrimination in its hiring, promotion, and disciplinary practices and created a hostile work environment. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit on behalf of themselves and more than 11,000 African-American unionized Amtrak employees, former employees, and applicants for employment at Amtrak.
Pending before the Court are plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Amtrak's motions to exclude a number of plaintiffs' experts, Amtrak's motion to strike portions of the declarations filed by plaintiffs in support of class certification, Amtrak's motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class certification, and Amtrak's motion for partial summary judgement. As explained more fully below, because plaintiffs' class definitions make membership in plaintiffs' proposed class contingent on individualized merits determinations, and because plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to establish that the claims of all class members are susceptible to common proof, plaintiffs' motion for class certification is DENIED. In addition, Amtrak's motion to exclude Jay Finkelman's expert report and testimony is GRANTED, Amtrak's motion to exclude Thomas [**6] Roth's expert report and testimony is DENIED, Amtrak's motion to exclude Edwin Bradley and Liesl Fox's expert report and testimony is DENIED, Amtrak's motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' declarations is GRANTED in part, Amtrak's motion to strike portions of plaintiffs' reply brief is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Amtrak's partial motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.
In Part I of this opinion, the Court sets forth the procedural history of this litigation. Part II sets forth factual background regarding Amtrak's structure, hiring and promotions decisions, disciplinary system, and work environment. In Parts III and IV, the Court analyzes the admissibility of various experts and other evidence offered in support of plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Part V discusses whether class certification is warranted in this case and, finally, Part VI resolves Amtrak's partial motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs' disparate-impact claims.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
311 F. Supp. 3d 281 *; 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70667 **
KENNETH CAMPBELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant.LORETTA K. BETHEA, Plaintiff, v. AMTRAK POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendant.
Prior History: Campbell v. Amtrak, 309 F.R.D. 21, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57968 (D.D.C., May 4, 2015)
employees, plaintiffs', hiring, promotion, class certification, discipline, reliable, craft, employment practice, decisions, practices, expert testimony, class-certification, statistical, policies, district court, merits, disciplinary, commonality, interview, expert report, declarations, qualifications, disparities, parties, racial discrimination, disparate impact, human-resource, certification, candidates
Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Types of Evidence, Testimony, Expert Witnesses, Qualifications, Prerequisites for Class Action, Labor & Employment Law, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Employee Burdens of Proof, Racial Discrimination, Statistical Evidence, Summary Judgment, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Appropriateness, Trials, Jury Trials, Province of Court & Jury, Prerequisites for Class Action, Commonality, Judgments, Entitlement as Matter of Law, Evidentiary Considerations, Movant Persuasion & Proof, Nonmovant Persuasion & Proof, Disparate Treatment, Burdens of Proof, Disparate Impact, Discrimination, Reconstruction Statutes