## Facts

- Mariano S. Falcon, a Mexican–American employee, was hired by General Telephone Company of the Southwest in 1969 and later sought a field inspector promotion.
- Falcon alleged he was denied promotion in favor of less qualified white applicants and filed an EEOC charge asserting that the company’s promotion policy disadvantaged Mexican–Americans.
- After receiving a right-to-sue letter, Falcon filed a Title VII action and sought to represent a class of Mexican–American employees and Mexican–American job applicants who were not hired.
- The district court certified the broad class without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
- After trial, the district court found discrimination against Falcon in promotion (but not hiring) and found discrimination against the class in hiring (but not promotion).
- The Fifth Circuit approved certification under an “across-the-board” approach allowing one victim of discrimination to challenge multiple employment practices affecting others if based on the same protected trait.
- The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether class certification was proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) in a Title VII case.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff alleging discriminatory failure to promote may be certified under Rule 23(a) to represent a class that includes both employees denied promotion and applicants denied initial employment based largely on a general allegation of national-origin discrimination.
2. Whether Title VII permits “across-the-board” class certification without a showing, supported by evidence, that the named plaintiff’s claim is common and typical of the class claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the approval of class certification and remanded.
- The Court held that the district court erred by allowing Falcon to maintain a broadly defined class action without showing actual compliance with Rule 23(a).
- The Court rejected automatic “across-the-board” certification based solely on allegations of a general discriminatory policy affecting a protected group.
- The Court directed that the existing class certification be vacated and that any renewed certification be reconsidered on a proper Rule 23 record, including whether a narrower class could be appropriate.

## Legal Principles

- A Title VII plaintiff seeking to proceed as a class representative must satisfy Rule 23(a)’s prerequisites of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
- Rule 23(a) limits class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff’s claim; representativeness cannot be presumed from allegations alone.
- A class representative must be part of the class and possess the same interest and suffer the same injury as absent class members.
- Title VII targets discriminatory employment practices rather than an abstract policy of discrimination; certification requires a concrete linkage between the named plaintiff’s alleged injury and the class members’ alleged injuries.
- Commonality and typicality function as guideposts for whether the claims are sufficiently interrelated that absent members’ interests will be fairly protected.
- Courts may need to probe behind the pleadings at certification and should base certification on an evidentiary record; certification orders remain subject to later modification as the case develops.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a promotion-discrimination plaintiff cannot, without evidentiary support showing common and typical injury, represent a class that includes hiring applicants and challenges multiple employment practices; Title VII class actions must meet Rule 23(a) through actual proof, not presumptions.


Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982)