 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Communications Workers of America6/24/2003
UNPUBLISHED
Defendants appeal by leave granted from the circuit court's order granting plaintiffs' motion to certify a class in this employment discrimination case. We reverse in part, vacate in part, and remand.
This case arises from Ameritech's reintroduction in 1994 of an employee performance review/management program called Committee on Employee Development and known as " Co-Ed," and a later version of this program, called Performance Management 201 and known as "PM201" (hereinafter referred to collectively as Co-Ed). Co-Ed monitored on a quarterly basis the performance of technicians at Ameritech's Detroit garages and focused on employees whose performance was evaluated to be within the bottom 15% (i.e., the "Co-Ed list") as compared to their fellow employees with respect to quality and productivity. Quality entailed the presence or absence of defects, including the number of customer call-backs after a technician's initial service call; productivity included cycle time, i.e., the average time to complete assigned jobs.
Defendants claim that Co-Ed was designed to improve customer service and the performance of the technicians. According to defendants, employees on the Co-Ed list would receive coaching from managers, thereby improving their own performance and thus improving the performance of the group. Defendants state that employees were disciplined only after the coaching process proved unsuccessful. According to defendants, Co-Ed has improved quality, customer service, and customer satisfaction.
Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that " n theory, [the Co-Ed] list was supposed to be used to identify those persons who were having difficulty and to assist them through coaching and training to improve." However, plaintiffs claim that Co-Ed was punitive and discriminatory, stating that white employees were neither scrutinized nor disciplined to the same degree as were black employees. Further, plaintiffs claim that defendants engaged in systemic retaliation against those members of the purported class, regardless of race, who protested discrimination by verbalizing to management that the Co-Ed program was being implemented in a racially discriminatory manner. Additionally, plaintiffs claim systemic handicap discrimination exists with respect to the Co-Ed list and that "there is a high correlation between those who have been injured on the job , and those who have been placed on the Co-Ed list." Plaintiffs further claim that Ameritech has changed its policies concerning compensation for work-related injuries for the purpose of retaliating against injured workers who seek compensation benefits.
In October 1998, plaintiffs moved to certify the class. Over an almost two-year period, the circuit court held over thirty evidentiary hearings concerning class certification. On February 8, 2001, the circuit court issued a sixteen-page opinion and order granting plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Defendants sought leave to appeal the class certification ruling. Meanwhile, the circuit court approved plaintiffs' class notice, which essentially described a class including three categories of technical employees at three of Ameritech's Detroit garages from 1995 through the first quarter of 1998: (1) African-American potential class members ; (2) handicapped potential class members; and (3) protesting potential class members. Shortly thereafter, this Court granted leave to appeal and stayed further proceedings in the circuit court pending resolution of this appeal or further order of this Court.
On appeal, defendants argue that the circuit court erred in granting class certification pursuant to MCR 3.501 for multiple reasons.
Page 1 2 3 4 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|