## Facts

- A Black correctional officer employed by the Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) alleged racially discriminatory discipline and repeated denial of promotions, and he filed an EEOC charge that also referenced broader discrimination in recruiting, hiring, and promotion of minority groups.
- The officer received a right-to-sue letter and brought a Title VII suit alleging class-wide discrimination in promotions, hiring, job assignments, and the use of a written entry-level examination with disparate impact on Black applicants.
- The district court found the written examination was required for all persons seeking correctional officer positions.
- Two additional Black applicants were added as named plaintiffs: one who took and failed the written exam and was not hired, and one who did not take the exam.
- The district court certified a broad class of Black past, present, and potential employees/applicants, including applicants who failed the exam and applicants who never took it, and permitted the three named plaintiffs to represent these groups.
- FDOC and officials appealed, challenging the class definition and the use of the applicant-plaintiffs as class representatives.

## Issues

1. Whether the officer’s EEOC charge reasonably encompassed class claims challenging FDOC hiring practices and the written entry-level examination affecting Black applicants.
2. Whether an applicant who failed the exam but did not file an EEOC charge could serve as a named class representative in a Title VII class action.
3. Whether an applicant who never took the written exam could be a typical and adequate representative for a subclass challenging the exam’s disparate impact.
4. Whether Rule 23 permitted a single broad class combining employee promotion/discipline claims with distinct applicant/exam claims without narrower subclasses and aligned representatives.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit vacated the class certification order in part and remanded for reconsideration and restructuring.
- The court held that the officer’s EEOC charge was sufficiently broad to allow litigation of related systemic claims, including claims tied to hiring and the entry-level exam, to the extent they could reasonably be expected to grow out of the charge.
- The court required the district court to narrow and redefine the class and create appropriate subclasses corresponding to distinct challenged practices.
- The court concluded the applicant who never took the exam was not a typical or adequate representative for an exam-impact subclass.
- The court directed reconsideration of the role of the applicant who failed the exam but did not file an EEOC charge, indicating his interests could be protected as a class member within a properly defined subclass rather than as a separate named representative.

## Legal Principles

- In Title VII actions, judicial claims are limited to claims that can reasonably be expected to grow out of the EEOC charge and the administrative investigation it would trigger.
- A properly framed EEOC charge may support class claims addressing related employment practices that are like or related to the allegations presented administratively, consistent with the notice and conciliation purposes of Title VII.
- The single-filing (piggybacking) doctrine can permit similarly situated individuals to participate in Title VII litigation without filing separate EEOC charges, but class representation must still comport with Title VII’s administrative scheme and Rule 23.
- Under Rule 23, class representatives must have claims typical of the subclass and must adequately represent subclass interests; representatives for a disparate-impact challenge to a specific exam generally must have been subject to that exam.
- When a case targets multiple employment practices (e.g., promotions/discipline versus an entry-level test), the class definition and subclass structure must reflect differences in theories, proof, and relief to satisfy commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit required the district court to recertify any class in a narrower, practice-specific form, with subclasses and representatives aligned to the particular challenged practices, and with the scope of applicant claims and representatives constrained by Title VII’s EEOC-charge limits and Rule 23’s typicality and adequacy requirements.


Griffin v. Dugger, 823 F.2d 1476 (11th Cir. 1987)