## Facts

- Lois Johnson, a female deputy sheriff employed since 1979, worked in the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Department jail division and alleged she was kept there despite requests for reassignment.
- Johnson alleged sex discrimination in hiring, promotions, and transfers, including policies that limited women’s opportunities and resulted in less-qualified men receiving preferred assignments and advancement.
- The Sheriff’s Department had approximately 100 deputy sheriffs and ranking officers across three divisions (jail, civil, criminal), with women heavily underrepresented in several areas (including only one female deputy in the criminal division and one female ranking officer overall).
- Johnson sought to represent an “across-the-board” class of all past, present, and future female employees and all present and future female applicants, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief as well as back pay and front pay.
- The putative class included approximately 12 past female employees, 14 present female employees, 33 female applicants on the personnel register, and unidentifiable future female employees and applicants.
- After suit was filed, two women were transferred from the jail division, but Johnson contended the changes did not resolve the challenged practices.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.
2. Whether the action could be maintained under Rule 23(b)(2) because the challenged conduct was generally applicable to the class and classwide injunctive and declaratory relief was appropriate.

## Decision

- The court certified the case as a class action.
- The court found joinder impracticable given the number of affected past and present employees, the pool of applicants, and the inclusion of future employees and applicants.
- The court concluded that common questions existed and Johnson’s claims were typical because the lawsuit challenged alleged department-wide policies affecting women in hiring, assignment, promotion, and transfer.
- The court found Johnson and her counsel could adequately represent the class.
- The court held Rule 23(b)(2) was satisfied because the defendants were alleged to have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief was central to the case.
- The court determined that voluntary changes during litigation (including transfers of two women) did not defeat certification or otherwise dispose of the systemic claims.

## Legal Principles

- In Title VII cases alleging department-wide discriminatory policies or practices, Rule 23(a) commonality and typicality are generally met when class members’ claims arise from the same challenged employment practices.
- Numerosity may be satisfied where affected individuals include past and present employees, current applicants, and future employees or applicants such that joinder is impracticable.
- Rule 23(b)(2) certification is appropriate when the defendant’s alleged conduct is generally applicable to the class and the primary relief sought is declaratory or injunctive relief (even if back pay or front pay is also requested).
- Voluntary cessation or partial modification of challenged practices during litigation does not, by itself, bar class certification or defeat claims seeking systemic prospective relief.

## Conclusion

The court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of past, present, and future female employees and applicants because the complaint alleged generally applicable, department-wide sex-discriminatory policies in hiring, assignment, promotion, and transfers, making classwide equitable relief an appropriate procedural vehicle.


Johnson v. Montgomery Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 99 F.R.D. 562 (M.D. Ala. 1983)