Duane Morris Class Action Review - 2023 - Report - Page 183
proof supporting their disparate treatment claims using evidence common to all class
members, including expert analysis comparing the job requirements, pay, and racial
composition. As to the Rule 23(b) requirements, the court found that plaintiffs satisfied
predominance by providing evidence that the difference in compensation between FPIs
and BIs was statistically significant, and the difference in racial composition between the
FPI and BI workforces was statistically significant. Finally, the court determined that a
class action would be the superior method of adjudication because of the relatively
small amount of each claim, and the ability to resolve the disputes of potentially
hundreds of employees in one action. For these reasons, the court granted plaintiffs’
motion for class certification.
The case of Chen-Oster, et al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150548
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2022), is equally significant, albeit in the context of a motion for
decertification (of a previously certified class). Plaintiffs, a group female employees, filed
a class action alleging that defendant paid female employees less than male employees
and denied them opportunities for career advancements in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs contended that defendant systematically provided them with
performance reviews that were worse than male performance reviews, thereby resulting
in discriminatory promotional and pay opportunities. The court previously had certified
the class and thereafter denied defendant’s motion to decertify the class based on
additional expert testimony. Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s
order, and the court denied reconsideration. Defendant argued that plaintiffs failed to
establish that they were actually provided with less pay due to its performance review
policies and procedures. The court rejected this argument, but it amended the class
definition to eliminate employees who did not experience reduced compensation and
who did not participate in certain performance review processes.
Finally, in Santiago, et al. v. Information Resources Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29157
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 17, 2022), Plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a class and collective
action alleging that Defendant subjected them to various forms of employment
discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the New York State Human
Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Pay Equity Law,
and the Equal Pay Act (EPA). Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of the
EPA claim, and the court granted the motion in part. Plaintiffs sought conditional
certification of an EPA collective action comprised of all female analysts, consultants,
principals, vice presidents, and senior vice presidents who worked for Defendant. In
support of the motion, Plaintiffs submitted several affidavits and declarations supporting
the allegations in the complaint. The court disregarded defendant’s contention that
plaintiffs failed to assert plausible EPA claims. It found that the argument went to the
merits of the claim and was thus unsuitable to consider at the conditional certification
stage. The court concluded that plaintiffs made the requisite showing necessary at the
conditional certification stage to demonstrate that they were similarly-situated to
members of the proposed collective action for purposes of conditional certification.
However, the court limited the collective action members to female consultants who
worked for defendants in New York because plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence
that they were aware that others outside of New York who were subjected to the same
182
© Duane Morris LLP 2023
Duane Morris Class Action Review – 2023
