## Facts

- Two long-term employees sued their employer after a corporate acquisition, alleging age-based discrimination and related state-law tort claims.
- The employees claimed that new management engaged in a common pattern of conduct aimed at pushing out older workers through harassment and adverse treatment.
- Each employee experienced different employment actions and departures, but their allegations overlapped in time period, workplace setting, and asserted management practices.
- The employer moved to sever the plaintiffs’ claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a) and 21, arguing misjoinder.
- In the alternative, the employer sought separate trials under Rule 42(b), citing potential prejudice and jury confusion.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs’ 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 Rule 20(a).
2. If joinder was proper, whether the court should nonetheless sever the claims under Rule 21.
3. Whether separate trials should be ordered under Rule 42(b) to avoid prejudice, confusion, or inefficiency.

## Decision

- The court held that permissive joinder was proper under Rule 20(a).
- The court denied the employer’s motion to sever under Rules 20(a) and 21.
- The court denied the alternative request for separate trials under Rule 42(b).
- The court concluded that any risk of prejudice or confusion could be managed through trial management and jury instructions, and that a single proceeding would conserve judicial resources.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 20(a) is construed liberally; claims may be joined when they bear a logical relationship and arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences, including an alleged common discriminatory pattern.
- Common questions of law or fact may exist where plaintiffs rely on the same statutory frameworks and overlapping proof about policies, management conduct, and decisionmaking.
- Even where joinder is permitted, severance under Rule 21 and separate trials under Rule 42(b) are discretionary and depend on practical considerations such as manageability, prejudice, and efficiency.
- Potential spillover prejudice or jury confusion, standing alone, may be insufficient to warrant severance or separate trials when the case involves a small number of plaintiffs and overlapping evidence.

## Conclusion

The court allowed two employees to proceed together because their age-discrimination allegations were logically related and shared common legal and factual questions, and it found that separate proceedings were unnecessary given manageable trial risks and the efficiencies of one case.


Puricelli v. CNA Ins. Co., 185 F.R.D. 139 (N.D.N.Y. 1999)