## Facts

- African-American current and former employees and unsuccessful applicants alleged race discrimination at an employer’s Lake Charles, Louisiana refinery and related facilities.
- Plaintiffs asserted a pattern-or-practice of discrimination in hiring, promotion, training, and discipline, and also alleged hostile work environment.
- The proposed class exceeded 1,000 persons and spanned many job categories, supervisors, and time periods.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary relief including back pay, front pay, attorneys’ fees, and compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII (as amended in 1991) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) and effectively also under Rule 23(b)(3).
- Plaintiffs pursued an interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of certification.

## Issues

1. Whether a Title VII/§ 1981 employment discrimination class seeking injunctive relief plus compensatory and punitive damages may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
2. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a) commonality, typicality, and adequacy given varied job settings and individualized employment decisions.
3. Whether certification was proper under Rule 23(b)(3) where individualized liability and damages questions were substantial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the denial of class certification.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification was improper because compensatory and punitive damages were not incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief and would require individualized determinations.
- Rule 23(b)(3) certification was also improper because individualized issues predominated and the class procedure was not shown to be superior given the need for person-by-person proof.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing certification for a broad, heterogeneous proposed class.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(b)(2) is generally reserved for cases where final injunctive or declaratory relief predominates; monetary relief may be included only when it is incidental to that relief.
- “Incidental” monetary relief is relief that flows directly from classwide liability and can be computed without individualized hearings on each member’s circumstances.
- Compensatory and punitive damages in employment discrimination cases commonly require individualized proof (including emotional harm and punitive-damages factors), making them non-incidental for Rule 23(b)(2) purposes.
- Under Rule 23(b)(3), predominance is not satisfied when individualized questions of liability and damages outweigh common questions about general policies or practices; extensive “mini-trials” can defeat both predominance and superiority.
- Class structures that limit a defendant’s ability to contest individualized elements of liability or damages raise fairness and due process concerns relevant to Rule 23 analysis.

## Conclusion

The court held that a broad employment-discrimination class seeking substantial compensatory and punitive damages could not proceed under Rule 23(b)(2) because such damages required individualized determinations, and it also could not proceed under Rule 23(b)(3) because individualized liability and damages questions predominated, supporting affirmance of the denial of class certification.


Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402 (5th Cir. 1998)