WADE v. MINYARDS FOOD STORES, (N.D.Tex. 2003)

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Civil No. 3: 03-CV-1403-H

Judges

Harold Barefoot Sanders

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff Joyce Wade filed suit against Defendant Minyard Food Stores alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and against Defendant Ronnie Lane for assault under state law. Wade also asserted a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against both defendants. Wade sought to add Janet Clewis as an additional plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). The proposed First Amended Complaint included claims by both Wade and Clewis against Minyard for sexual harassment and against Lane for assault. Defendant Minyard opposed the joinder, arguing that Wade and Clewis’s claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence and did not present common questions of law or fact.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Janet Clewis may be permissively joined as a plaintiff with Joyce Wade under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a).
Whether the claims of Wade and Clewis arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences.
Whether the claims of Wade and Clewis present common questions of law or fact sufficient to justify joinder.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

Janet Clewis’s claims arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences as those of Joyce Wade.
Both plaintiffs’ claims involve sexual harassment by Minyard and assault by Lane, presenting common questions of law and fact.
Joinder promotes judicial economy and is consistent with the liberal policy of Rule 20(a).

Defendant's Arguments

Wade and Clewis’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction or occurrence.
The claims do not present common questions of law or fact, thus failing the requirements for permissive joinder under Rule 20(a).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Battison v. City of Electra, 2001 WL 497769 (N.D. Tex. 2001)	Flexibility of Rule 20(a) transaction and common question requirements to promote judicial economy.	Supported the Court’s broad interpretation of Rule 20(a) to allow joinder of claims arising from logically related events.
Weber v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 2001 WL 274518 (E.D. La. 2001)	Definition of "same transaction or occurrence" as a flexible, logical relationship between claims.	Guided the Court in determining that Wade and Clewis’s claims were logically related and arose from the same series of occurrences.
United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966)	Encouragement of broad joinder of claims, parties, and remedies consistent with fairness.	Supported the Court’s inclination to allow joinder to promote judicial efficiency and fairness.
Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000)	Allegations of a pattern or practice of discrimination satisfy the same transaction requirement for joinder.	Used to conclude that the sexual harassment claims arose from a common discriminatory practice by Minyard.
Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330 (8th Cir. 1974)	Policy-based discrimination claims arise from the same series of transactions or occurrences.	Supported the finding that Wade and Clewis’s claims arose from the same discriminatory practice.
Lott v. Eastman Kodak Co., 1999 WL 242688 (N.D. Tex. 1999)	Common questions of law exist when plaintiffs allege similar employment discrimination claims.	Supported the Court’s conclusion that Wade and Clewis’s sexual harassment claims presented common legal questions.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court analyzed the permissive joinder requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a), which permits joinder if the plaintiffs’ claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and if common questions of law or fact exist. The Court emphasized the flexible and broad construction of these requirements to promote judicial economy, citing relevant case law including Battison, Weber, and United Mine Workers v. Gibbs. The Court found that Wade and Clewis’s claims arise from a common pattern or practice of sexual harassment tolerated by Minyard and retaliatory termination of victims, constituting the same series of transactions or occurrences. Furthermore, the sexual harassment claims and assault claims present common legal questions. Therefore, both prongs of Rule 20(a) were satisfied, justifying the joinder of Clewis as a plaintiff.

Holding and Implications

The Court GRANTED Plaintiff Joyce Wade’s Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff. The Clerk of Court was directed to file the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint including Clewis.

The direct effect of this decision is to allow the consolidation of claims by Wade and Clewis in a single action, promoting judicial efficiency. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond the application of existing joinder principles.

Show full summary ...

JOYCE WADE, Plaintiff, v. MINYARDS FOOD STORES and RONNTE LANE, Defendants

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

BAREFOOT SANDERS, Senior District Judge

Before the Court are Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff, filed October 29, 2003, and Defendant Minyard Food Stores, Inc.'s Response, filed November 10, 2003. Upon review of the pleadings, briefs, and relevant authorities, the Court is of the Opinion for the reasons stated below that Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff should be GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Joyce Wade ("Wade") brings claims against Defendant Minyard Food Stores ("Minyard") for sexual harassment pursuant to Title VJJ and against Defendant Ronnie Lane ("Lane") for assault pursuant to state law. (Compl. at 1). Wade also brings a claim against both defendants for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at 4). Wade seeks to add another plaintiff, Janet Clewis ("Clewis"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a). (See Pl.'s Mot. at 1). Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint asserts causes of action for both Wade and Clewis against Minyard for sexual harassment pursuant to Title VII and against Lane for assault. ( See Proposed First Am. Compl. at 3-6). Minyard argues that Wade and Clewis cannot meet the requirements for permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 20(a). Namely, Minyard contends that their claims do not arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences and that their claims do not present common questions of law or fact.

Although the cause of action against Lane for assault of Clewis is not listed as a separate claim in the First Amended Complaint, the Court notes that paragraph 32 states facts sufficient to state a claim for assault as to Clewis. (See Proposed First Am. Compl. at 6).

II. ANALYSIS

Pursuant to Rule 20(a), "[a]11 persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action." FED.R.Civ.P. 20(a). "[T]he transaction and common question requirements prescribed by Rule 20(a) are not rigid tests . . . they are flexible concepts used by the courts to implement the purpose of Rule 20 and therefore are to be read as broadly as possible whenever doing so is likely to promote judicial economy." Battison v. City of Electra, No. 7:01-CV-037-R, 2001 WL 497769, *1 (N.D.Tex. May 8, 2001) (quoting Weber v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. CIV. A. 00-2876, 2001 WL 274518, *2 (E.D.La. 2001) (citing Wright, Miller Kane, FEDERAL PRACTICE PROCEDURE, § 1653 (1986))).The Supreme Court also strongly encourages the joinder of claims, parties, and remedies. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S.715, 724 (1966) ("Under the Rules, the impulse is towards entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties and remedies is strongly encouraged.").

The instant case meets the first requirement because both Wade and Clewis's claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences. In determining whether this test is met, the Court considers whether there is a logical relationship between the claims. See Weber, 2001 WL 274518, at *1. "Several courts have concluded that allegations of a pattern or practice of discrimination may describe such logically related events and satisfy the same transaction requirement," particularly in employment discrimination cases. Alexander v. Fulton County, 207 F.3d 1303, 1323 (11th Cir. 2000). See also Mosley v. General Motors Corp., 497 F.2d 1330, 1333 (8th Cir. 1974) (reversing the trial court's severance of plaintiffs' claims because the defendant's policy was "purportedly designed to discriminate against blacks in employment" and therefore, arose out of the same series of transactions and occurrences). Plaintiffs' proposed First Amended Complaint has alleged that Minyard had a practice of tolerating sexual harassment by its managers and terminating the victims who complained. (See First Am. Compl. at 4). Therefore, Wade and Clewis's claims arise out of the same series of transactions or occurrences.

The second requirement of Rule 20(a) is also met in the instant case. Wade and Clewis's sexual harassment claims present common questions of law. See Alexander, 207 F.3d at 1324. See also Lott v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 3:97-CV-2560-P, 1999 WL 242688, *2 (N.D.Tex. April 16, 1999) ("Both Plaintiffs have alleged that they were victims of employment discrimination based on age. As such, a common question of law is present."). Similarly, Wade and Clewis's claims of assault against Lane also present common questions of law.

Because both requirements for permissive joinder pursuant to Rule 20(a) are met in the instant case, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff.

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs Motion to Join Janet Clewis as Plaintiff is GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to file Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint.

SO ORDERED.