Law Commons^™

When Congress Requires Nationwide Injunctions, David Hausman

University of Colorado Law Review

A curious provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) precludes class actions challenging expedited removal, the system of fast-track deportations for individuals who have recently entered the country. The same provision authorizes nationwide relief in non-class actions, but it requires that plaintiffs in such non-class systemic challenges file their claims in the federal District Court for the District of Columbia and that they do so within sixty days of the challenged change to the system. This framework should matter to scholars of nationwide injunctions for two reasons. First, Congress took for granted in 1996 that federal district courts may …

No Longer A Second-Class Class Action? Finding Common Ground In The Debate Over Wage Collective Actions With Best Practices For Litigation And Adjudication, Scott A. Moss, Nantiya Ruan

Publications

Rule 23 class actions include all potential members, if granted certification. For wage claims, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) allows not class but collective actions covering only those opting in. Courts have practiced Rule 23-style gatekeeping in collective actions – requiring certification motions, which they deny if members lack enough commonality. Our 2012 article argued against this practice. No statute or rule grants judges the § 216(b) gatekeeping power early cases assumed, and with good reason: opt-in reduces the agency problems justifying Rule 23 gatekeeping; and Congress passed § 216(b) as not a stricter, opt-in form of class action, but liberalized …

Class Actions, Civil Rights, And The National Injunction, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

This essay is a response to Professor Samuel Bray’s article proposing a blanket prohibition against injunctions that enjoin a defendant’s conduct with respect to nonparties. He argues that national injunctions are illegitimate under Article III and traditional equity and result in a number of difficulties.

This Response argues, from a normative lens, that Bray’s proposed ban on national injunctions should be rejected. Such a bright-line rule against national injunctions is too blunt an instrument to address the complexity of our tripartite system of government, our pluralistic society and our democracy. Although national injunctions may be imperfect and crude forms of …

Waltzing Through A Loophole: How Parens Patriae Suits Allow Circumvention Of The Class Action Fairness Act, Jacob Durling

University of Colorado Law Review

This Note explores the applicability of the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) mass action removal provision to parens patriae suits. CAFA amended the federal rules governing aggregate litigation, replacing the complete diversity requirement with a minimal diversity requirement. CAFA's applicability to parens patriae suits, a type of representative lawsuit brought by a state alleging injuries to its citizens, was first addressed in Louisiana ex rel. Caldwell v. Allstate Insurance Co. In Caldwell, the Fifth Circuit held that a parens patriae suit was mislabeled because the real parties in interest-the parties whose interests constitute the basis of the parens patriae standing-represented …

Civil Rights And Systemic Wrongs, Melissa Hart

Publications

Systemic employment discrimination is a structural, social harm whose victims include not only those who can be specifically identified, but also many who cannot. Pattern and practice claims in employment litigation are an essential tool for challenging this structural harm. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes brushes aside the systemic nature of the plaintiffs' claims, making both theoretical and doctrinal mistakes in its application of the procedural and substantive law applicable in employment discrimination class action litigation. The most troubling part of the Court's opinion--its rejection of statistical modeling for remedial determinations--has received little attention. This article …

Clearing Civil Procedure Hurdles In The Quest For Justice, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.

Class Dismissed: Equal Protection, The "Class-Of-One," And Employment Discrimination After Engquist V. Oregon Department Of Agriculture, Matthew M. Morrison

University of Colorado Law Review

This Note examines whether government employees should be able to assert so-called "class-of-one" claims against public employers under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Traditional equal protection claims allege that the government has impermissibly singled out the plaintiff for disparate treatment on account of his or her race, gender, or some other trait shared with a larger class of individuals. Such claims reflect the traditional understanding of the Equal Protection Clause as a prohibition on discriminatory group classifications. Class-of-one claims, however, merely allege that the plaintiff was intentionally singled out from other similarly situated individuals and subjected to unequal treatment …

Dura Duress: The Supreme Court Mandates A More Rigorous Pleading And Proof Requirement For Loss Causation Under Rule Lob-5 Class Actions, Jared Neas

University of Colorado Law Review

The Supreme Court's holding in Dura Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Broudo imposes a heightened pleading requirement for private plaintiffins misrepresentation or omission securities class actions under Rule lOb-5. The Court verified that a plaintiff must adequately plead loss causation in its complaint and rejected the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of the loss causation standard. The Supreme Court held that the plaintif's pleadings in Dura did not meet the loss causation requirement of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA'). The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit's requirement that the alleged misconduct merely "touch upon " the economic loss. Instead, the Supreme Court …

Will Employment Discrimination Class Actions Survive?, Melissa Hart

Publications

Recent years have witnessed increasing attacks on the appropriateness of certification of employment discrimination class action claims. The shift is often attributed to amendments to federal antidiscrimination laws in the Civil Rights Act of 1991. This paper argues, however, that the changes wrought by the 1991 amendments need not pose a barrier to resolution of employment discrimination claims through class litigation. The addition of compensatory and punitive damages and a jury-trial right may increase the level of scrutiny and perhaps the level of judicial involvement necessary in an employment discrimination class action. But they do not render such a class …

Litigation Narratives: Why Jensen V. Ellerth Didn't Change Sexual Harassment Law, But Still Has A Story Worth Telling, Melissa Hart

Publications

No abstract provided.