## Facts

- Six Black employees sued their employer, alleging both individual discriminatory acts and company-wide racial discrimination.
- The case was initially pleaded as a putative class action asserting constitutional claims, Title VII claims, and claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
- The court previously dismissed the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment claims and dismissed each plaintiff’s Title VII claims, leaving only § 1981 claims.
- Plaintiffs worked in the same or related units and asserted that common supervisory personnel influenced the challenged employment decisions.
- The employer moved to sever the plaintiffs’ claims or, alternatively, to require separate trials before separate juries, arguing the claims were individualized and that plaintiffs had not timely sought class certification under a local rule.

## Issues

1. Whether the six plaintiffs’ § 1981 employment discrimination claims arose out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and shared common questions of law or fact, permitting joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).
2. Whether the court should sever the plaintiffs or order separate trials under Rules 20 and 21 based on asserted prejudice, jury confusion, and the absence of class certification.

## Decision

- The court denied the employer’s motion for severance or separate trials.
- The court held the plaintiffs were properly joined under Rule 20(a) because their claims arose from the same series of transactions or occurrences: alleged overlapping employment practices connected to a broader discriminatory policy.
- The court found common questions of law and fact, including whether the employer maintained a discriminatory policy affecting Black employees and whether the challenged actions violated § 1981.
- The court rejected the argument that failure to obtain class certification barred joint litigation, reasoning that Rule 20 joinder and Rule 23 class certification impose different requirements.
- The court concluded that efficiency and fairness favored a joint proceeding and that any risk of confusion could be addressed through trial management and instructions.

## Legal Principles

- Permissive joinder under Rule 20(a) requires both (1) claims arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and (2) at least one common question of law or fact.
- Rule 21 authorizes a court to remedy misjoinder by severing claims or parties, but severance is discretionary and should consider fairness and efficiency.
- Allegations of a common discriminatory policy, overlapping work settings, and shared supervisors can satisfy Rule 20(a)’s “series of transactions or occurrences” requirement even if each plaintiff experienced different adverse actions.
- The absence of class certification does not preclude multiple plaintiffs from proceeding together when Rule 20(a)’s requirements are met.
- Potential prejudice or jury confusion from joint trial may be mitigated through instructions and case management and does not, by itself, require severance where the claims substantially overlap.

## Conclusion

The court allowed six employees to proceed together on § 1981 discrimination claims, holding that alleged company-wide racial discrimination and overlapping proof satisfied Rule 20(a) and that the lack of class certification did not require severance or separate trials.


King v. Pepsi Cola Metro. Bottling Co., 86 F.R.D. 4 (E.D. Pa. 1979)