Sally Randall, et al v. Rolls-Royce Corporation, et al, No. 10-3446 (7th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseMore than 500 female employees at an Indiana Rolls Royce plant were denied class certification under Rule 23 (b)(2) and the court entered summary judgment, rejecting their discrimination claims on the merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first noting that appeal was a risky strategy because it could result in different decisions on certification and the merits, causing individuals to be barred from bringing legitimate claims. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the there were no sex-based differences in pay or promotions. The named plaintiffs' claims and defenses were not typical of the class; some named plaintiffs had authority over compensation of male and female workers. The court noted that there might be less variance in a suit seeking only injunctive relief, but the suit sought damages. The Rule under which certification was sought, improperly, according to the court, does not permit plaintiffs to opt out, but calculating damages in this case would require 500 hearings. The district court acted within its discretion in denying a motion to substitute named plaintiffs.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on March 31, 2011.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.