Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Moore v. Napolitano

United States District Court for the District of Columbia

February 25, 2013, Decided

Civil Action No. 00-953 (RWR/DAR)

Opinion

 [*11]  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiffs, African-American current and former Special Agents ("SAs") of the United [*12]  States Secret Service, bring this employment discrimination action individually and as a putative class action on behalf of African-American SAs against the Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security alleging that the Secret Service engaged in a pattern and practice of racial discrimination in promoting African-American SAs to GS-14 and GS-15 positions and that the Secret Service's promotion process has an adverse impact upon African-American SAs in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The plaintiffs move to certify a class of African-American current  [**3] and former SAs who have allegedly been denied promotions due to racial discrimination under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The defendant moves to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Charles Mann, offered in support of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Because Dr. Mann is qualified to offer his expert opinion and his testimony is relevant and reliable, the defendant's motion will be denied. Because the class plaintiffs have met Rule 23(a)'s numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements, and because the plaintiffs have met Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance and superiority requirements, the plaintiffs' motion for class certification will be granted.

BACKGROUND

The relevant facts for the motion for class certification were set out in Moore v. Napolitano (Moore III), 269 F.R.D. 21 (D.D.C. 2010) as follows:

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges that throughout the proposed class period, 1 the Secret Service has maintained a pattern and practice of discrimination against African-American SAs with regard to selections for competitive positions, discipline, transfers, assignments, testing, and hiring. Plaintiffs generally allege  [**4] that, over the course of many years, the Secret Service has engaged in a wide variety of racially discriminatory employment practices, that it harbors a racially insensitive environment that tolerates racist activities, and that [it] fails to protect its African-American SAs from racial discrimination. Although the Secret Service has received multiple complaints about the discriminatory conduct, plaintiffs claim, no sufficient remedy has been provided.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

926 F. Supp. 2d 8 *; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25248 **; 117 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1220; 2013 WL 659111

REGINALD MOORE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, Defendant.

Subsequent History: Related proceeding at Burns-Ramirez v. Napolitano, 962 F. Supp. 2d 253, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121408 (D.D.C., 2013)

Motion denied by, Motion denied by, As moot, Sub nomine at Moore v. Johnson, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27099 (D.D.C., Mar. 4, 2014)

Review denied by In re Johnson, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14758 (D.C. Cir., Aug. 1, 2014)

Prior History: Moore v. Napolitano, 269 F.R.D. 21, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78562 (D.D.C., 2010)

CORE TERMS

promotion, bid, plaintiffs', positions, class member, score, discriminatory, disparate impact, analyses, class action, disparity, special agent, statistical, statistically significant, class certification, statistical evidence, disparate treatment, alleges, pools, proposed class, reliable, commonality, tests, adverse impact, numerosity, rank, eligible, cases, hired, class period

Civil Procedure, Special Proceedings, Class Actions, Certification of Classes, Evidence, Admissibility, Expert Witnesses, Daubert Standard, Governments, Courts, Judicial Precedent, Dicta, Expert Witnesses, Judicial Precedent, Relevance, Relevant Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Preponderance of Evidence, Labor & Employment Law, Disparate Impact, Evidence, Statistical Evidence, Disparate Treatment, Burdens of Proof, Employment Practices, Pattern & Practice, Employee Burdens of Proof, Racial Discrimination, Discrimination, General Overview, Defenses, Balanced Workforce & Bottom Line, Demotions & Promotions, Adverse Employment Actions, Discovery & Disclosure, Disclosure, Mandatory Disclosures, Sanctions, Discovery, Misconduct During Discovery, Prerequisites for Class Action, Inferences & Presumptions, Presumptions, Creation, Actionable Discrimination, Numerosity, Commonality, Circumstantial & Direct Evidence, Typicality, Adequacy of Representation, Predominance, Superiority, Burden Shifting, Notice of Class Action, Class Attorneys, Appointments