## Facts

- Twenty-seven current or former Black employees at an Indianapolis manufacturing plant sued their employer alleging a racially hostile work environment and management inaction in response to complaints.
- Plaintiffs sought individual monetary damages under Title VII and classwide injunctive and declaratory relief to address alleged plant-wide conditions.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of approximately 350 current and former Black employees.
- The district court found Rule 23(a) prerequisites satisfied (numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy).
- The district court nevertheless denied class certification, reasoning that individualized damages and Seventh Amendment jury-trial concerns made class treatment imprudent and too difficult to manage.
- Plaintiffs sought interlocutory review of the denial of certification under Rule 23(f).

## Issues

1. Whether a request for individualized damages alongside classwide injunctive/declaratory relief categorically bars certification under Rule 23(b)(2) in a Title VII hostile-environment case.
2. Whether Seventh Amendment jury-trial concerns and perceived management difficulty justify denying any class mechanism when Rule 23(a) is satisfied and classwide equitable relief is sought.

## Decision

- The court of appeals granted interlocutory review under Rule 23(f).
- It held the district court misconstrued the interaction among Rule 23(b)(2), damages claims, and the Seventh Amendment.
- It ruled that seeking both damages and equitable relief does not automatically preclude a Rule 23(b)(2) class for classwide injunctive/declaratory relief.
- It concluded that Seventh Amendment and manageability concerns should be handled through case structure (e.g., bifurcation, sequencing, subclasses), not by rejecting class treatment outright.
- The court vacated the order denying class certification and remanded for reconsideration and restructuring consistent with Rule 23 and jury-trial requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(2) is available when the defendant’s alleged conduct is generally applicable to the class and classwide injunctive or declaratory relief is appropriate, even if damages are also sought.
- Post-1991 Title VII damages remedies complicate (b)(2) certification because (b)(2) lacks opt-out rights, but that complication does not justify a categorical refusal to use class procedures.
- District courts should use Rule 23’s tools—such as subclasses, bifurcated or phased proceedings, and separating liability/equitable relief from individual damages determinations—to manage mixed-remedy cases.
- The Seventh Amendment requires allocating factfinding to avoid improper reexamination of facts between judge and jury, but it does not forbid hybrid structures that combine classwide equitable relief with later individual damages trials.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that the denial of class certification rested on legal error because mixed claims for damages and classwide equitable relief do not, by themselves, bar Rule 23(b)(2) treatment; the proper response is to structure proceedings to protect jury-trial rights while permitting classwide adjudication of issues suitable for collective resolution.


Allen v. Int’l Truck & Engine Corp., 358 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004)