Proceeding was instituted on motion for class certification in discriminatory employment suit. The District Court, Snyder, J., held that: (1) plaintiffs, who alleged that they had personally suffered from most of the same discriminatory practices as the other members of the class both at their own location and at the other bakeries maintained by the corporate defendant, demonstrated a sufficient personal stake in the challenge of the systemwide policy and its application to the class to assure the adversity necessary for sharp and aggressive presentation of the issues as to the class and for zealous performance of their obligation to the public interest; (2) scope of charges before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission did not limit the district court's jurisdiction to one location where the plaintiffs alleged that they suffered from a discriminatory policy emanating from defendant's corporate headquarters which was manifested in a wide range of symptoms at all locations; (3) unions representing certain employees in prospective class were not indispensable parties to action by reason of fact that certain charges went directly to specific provisions in collective bargaining agreements, and (4) given plaintiffs' representativeness, common questions of law or fact, typicality of claims, adequacy of representation, and numerosity of class, suit was subject to being maintained as a class action on behalf of all present and future female employees and job applicants at all bakeries maintained by defendant and all females who were employed or who applied for employment at those bakeries. Motion granted
United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
Roslyn Litman and John E. Grasberger, Litman, Litman, Harris & Specter, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiffs. Leonard L. Scheinholtz, Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant. James S. Bukes, EEOC District Office, Pittsburgh, Pa., for intervenor.
17 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 507, 17 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8552, 25 Fed.R.Serv.2d 78