Thiessen v. General Electric

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

GARY A. THIESSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-3208
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, doing business as
GE Capital, and its representatives;
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT
SERVICES, INC., formerly known as
Monogram Retailer Credit Services,
Inc., a subsidiary of General Electric
Capital Corporation, and its
representatives,

Defendants-Appellees,
___________

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PERSONS; NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION; EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY
COUNCIL,

Amici Curiae.

ORDER
Filed September 28, 2001
Before BRISCOE , REAVLEY , * and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

Appellees’ petition for rehearing is granted. Our opinion of July 3, 2001 is

withdrawn and a revised opinion is filed with this order.

The petition for rehearing en banc was transmitted to all of the judges of

the court who are in regular active service as required by Fed. R. App. P. 35. As

no member of the panel and no judge in regular active service on the court

requested that the court be polled, the petition for rehearing en banc is denied.

Entered for the Court
PATRICK FISHER, Clerk of Court

by:
Deputy Clerk

*
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior Circuit Judge, United States
Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

2
 F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
SEP 28 2001
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
PATRICK FISHER
TENTH CIRCUIT Clerk

GARY A. THIESSEN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. No. 98-3208
GENERAL ELECTRIC CAPITAL
CORPORATION, doing business as
GE Capital, and its representatives;
MONTGOMERY WARD CREDIT
SERVICES, INC., formerly known as
Monogram Retailer Credit Services,
Inc., a subsidiary of General Electric
Capital Corporation, and its
representatives,

Defendants-Appellees,
___________

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF
RETIRED PERSONS; NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION; EQUAL
EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY
COUNCIL,

Amici Curiae.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas
(D.C. No. 96-CV-2410-JWL)
Bert S. Braud, The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri (John M.
Klamann and Dirk Hubbard, Klamann & Hubbard, P.A., Overland Park,
Kansas; Dennis E. Egan, The Popham Law Firm, P.C., Kansas City, Missouri,
with him on the briefs), for the appellant.

Glen D. Nager, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Washington, D.C. (Steven T.
Catlett and Matthew W. Lampe, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Columbus, Ohio,
with him on the brief), for the appellees.

Sally Dunaway, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, D.C., on the brief
for amicus curiae American Association of Retired Persons.

Paula Brantner, San Francisco, California, and Drew B. Tipton, Houston,
Marek & Griffin, L.L.P., Victoria, Texas, on the brief for amicus curiae
National Employment Lawyers Association.

Ann Elizabeth Reesman and Erin Quinn Gery, McGuiness & Williams,
Washington, D.C., on the brief for amicus curiae Equal Employment Advisory
Council.

Before BRISCOE , REAVLEY , * and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.

BRISCOE , Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Gary Thiessen, an employee of defendants General Electric

Capital Corporation (GE) and Montgomery Ward Credit Services, Inc., filed

this putative class action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act

(ADEA) alleging that he and other similarly situated employees had been

*
The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, Senior Circuit Judge, United States
Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.

2
adversely affected by a pattern or practice of age discrimination on the part of

defendants. Although the district court initially certified a class of twenty-

three plaintiffs, it ultimately decertified the class, dismissed the opt-in

plaintiffs, and granted summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to

Thiessen’s individual claims. Thiessen now appeals claiming the district court

erred in (1) decertifying the class and dismissing the opt-in plaintiffs, (2)

granting summary judgment in favor of defendants with respect to his

individual claims of age discrimination, (3) refusing to allow eight proposed

plaintiffs to join the class, and (4) refusing to allow him to depose defendants'

corporate counsel. We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I.

GE is the parent company of General Electric Capital Services (GECS),

which in turn owns General Electric Capital Credit (GECC). Within GECC is

the Retail Financial Services unit (RFS). In 1989, GECC purchased Monogram

Retail Credit Services, Inc. (MRCSI), which had been the credit division of

retailer Montgomery Ward. MRCSI became a subsidiary of the RFS unit after

the acquisition, and in 1997, it was renamed Montgomery Ward Credit

3
Services, Inc. 1

Thiessen, who was born on March 7, 1947, began working as a credit

manager trainee for MRCSI in 1968. From 1972 to mid-1994, he held various

management positions within MRCSI and progressed to Band 4 on the

company’s five-band pay-grade scale. Between May 1994 and August 1996,

Thiessen was placed on “special assignments” and assisted in the construction

of MRCSI facilities in Kansas, Illinois, and Georgia. At the completion of

those projects, Thiessen transferred to MRCSI’s Las Vegas facility and

assumed his current position as Band 4 collection manager. According to

statements in the record, Thiessen’s position at the Las Vegas facility was to

“be eliminated as of May 30, 1998,” and Thiessen allegedly was not “allowed

to post for any other positions within GE.” Aplt. App. 3 at 2.

On February 5, 1996, Thiessen filed a charge of discrimination with the

Kansas Human Rights Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC). He alleged that defendants had “an express but covert

‘White Blockers’ or ‘Blockers’ policy of discriminating against older white

employees . . . by forcing [them] into early retirement or by eliminating [their]

. . . position[s] through restructuring.” Id. at Tab C. He further alleged that

1
Because the bulk of relevant events in this case occurred prior to 1997,
the opinion will refer primarily to MRCSI.

4
defendants exercised this “pattern and practice of employment decisions

motivated by age and/or race and related factors” against him. Id.

Specifically, Thiessen alleged he was repeatedly denied promotions because of

his age and race. He subsequently filed this action alleging, in pertinent part,

that defendants committed willful violations of the ADEA by denying him

various promotions and placing him on “special assignments.” 2 Appee. Supp.

App. II at 003. Thiessen further alleged in his complaint that defendants

undertook a pattern or practice of systematically discriminating against older

employees.

The centerpiece of both Thiessen’s individual claims of age

discrimination and his claims of class-wide discrimination was a “blocker

policy” allegedly adopted and implemented by defendants in the early 1990s.

According to Thiessen, in 1991, “GECC management began referring to the

older [executive] employees as ‘blockers,’ because in their view these

employees were ‘blocking’ the advancement of younger, newly recruited

employees,” in particular those younger employees who were participants in

defendants’ Management Development Program (MDP). Id. at 004. On March

2, 1992, Dave Ekedahl, a vice-president at RFS, and David Ferreira, vice-

2
Although Thiessen’s complaint also included a claim under Title VII for
reverse race discrimination, he has since abandoned that claim.

5
president of human resources for GECC, sent a memorandum to Steve Joyce,

the then president and CEO of MRCSI, and Jeff Faucette, vice-president of

human resources for MRCSI, asking, “What are plans to upgrade executive

talent . . . remove blockers.” Appee. Supp. App. I at 119. In response to this

memo, Faucette directed his subordinates to prepare severance worksheets and

retirement packages for various MRCSI employees over the age of forty,

including Thiessen and several of the opt-in plaintiffs (Lawson, Gwen Colwell,

Bob Demartine, Melva Heid, and Bob Marsonette) none of whom had requested

such packages. On March 1, 1993, Ferreira circulated a memo to Faucette and

others again discussing the subject of “blockers.” Joyce and Faucette allegedly

gave a presentation discussing Band 4 Blockers at a 1993 leadership review

meeting attended by Ferreira. At a May 1993 meeting of MRCSI human

resource managers, the concept of “blockers” was again discussed and outlined

by Faucette. At a June 18, 1993, meeting at MRCSI’s Merriam, Kansas

facility, Faucette distributed a list of possible blockers to the human resource

managers. The managers were effectively instructed to discuss the blocker

policy with their respective operational managers, and assist the operational

managers in identifying blockers and carrying out the policy. Ultimately,

Thiessen alleges, the operational managers implemented the “blocker policy”

by taking various negative employment actions (e.g., negative performance

6
evaluations, demotions, terminations, reductions in force, placement on

“special projects,” etc.) toward older employees identified as blockers.

Thiessen alleged defendants’ “blocker policy” impacted all of the opt-in

plaintiffs, each of whom allegedly suffered some type of adverse employment

action. On an individual level, Thiessen alleged he was identified by

defendants as a blocker, and he was (1) denied a business center manager

position in Las Vegas in 1993, (2) phased out of his position as National

Attorney-Agency manager in 1994 and placed on “special assignment,” (3)

downgraded on his 1993 and 1994 performance reviews, and (4) denied two

remittance processing manager positions in 1995.

Defendants denied having any pattern or practice of discrimination.

Although they acknowledged there had been some discussion among certain

employees of blockers, they denied that any type of “blocker policy” was

implemented anywhere in the organization. Further, defendants alleged that in

the fall of 1994, Gail Lanik, the CEO of MRCSI and successor to Steve Joyce

expressly repudiated the notion that employment decisions were based on any

“blocker policy.” In response to defendants’ denials, Thiessen alleged that,

notwithstanding Lanik’s purported repudiation, the “blocker policy” continued

to be used on a covert basis. In support of his allegation, Thiessen pointed to

alleged acts of employment discrimination against him and the other proposed

7
plaintiffs after the fall of 1994. Thiessen also pointed to statistical evidence

that allegedly demonstrated older workers were treated less favorably than

younger employees.

During the course of discovery, the district court conditionally certified a

class of twenty-three plaintiffs (Thiessen and twenty-two opt-in plaintiffs).

Thiessen v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 996 F. Supp. 1071, 1083 (D. Kan.

1998) (Thiessen I). In doing so, the district court noted:

Mr. Thiessen has not simply averred the existence of a
discriminatory policy or merely argued that circumstantially one
should infer its existence by virtue of numerous people in the
protected category having incurred adverse employment actions.
Instead, he has come forward with direct evidence of an overall
policy of purported age discrimination. Moreover, the names of
some of the opt-in plaintiffs appear on “blocker” lists. The court
believes this evidence cannot be so easily discounted just because
the alleged discrimination was meted out “over a wide geographic
range in a number of ways” and that it merits a threshold
determination that the opt-in plaintiffs are “similarly situated” to
Mr. Thiessen for purposes of something akin to conditional
certification. However, the court remains troubled by a puzzling
lack of any significant showing by Mr. Thiessen that there is a link
between this alleged policy and the adverse job actions. Even if
there was a discriminatory policy, the opt-in plaintiffs are only
“similarly situated” if they can make a submissible case that they,
too, were victims of it. It is because of that deficiency, at least in
part, that the court is unwilling to grant final certification on the
record before it.

Id. The court cautioned Thiessen that, “[i]n order to survive a motion to

decertify,” he would “need to set forth what he deem[ed] to be the specific link

8
between the blocker policy and what occurred with each opt-in plaintiff.” Id.

Further, the court noted that if, in a subsequent motion to decertify, defendants

could “truly convince the court that individual [defense] issues would

predominate at trial, the contention that the opt-in plaintiffs [we]re similarly

situated would likely be largely eviscerated.” Id. at 1084. Finally, the court

noted it would make a final determination regarding whether the trial of all the

opt-in plaintiffs’ claims could be coherently managed and presented “in a

manner that w[ould] not confuse the jury or unduly prejudice any party.” Id.

At the conclusion of discovery, defendants moved to decertify the class.

Defendants also moved for summary judgment with respect to each of the

twenty-three plaintiffs. The district court decertified the class, dismissed the

opt-in plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice, and granted summary judgment in

favor of defendants with respect to Thiessen’s individual claims of

discrimination. Thiessen v. General Elec. Capital Corp., 13 F. Supp. 2d 1131

(D. Kan. 1998) (Thiessen II).

II.

Decertification of plaintiff class and dismissal of opt-in plaintiffs

Thiessen contends the district court erred in decertifying the plaintiff

class and dismissing the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice. We review

for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to certify or decertify a class

9
under the ADEA. See Mooney v. Aramco Servs. Co., 54 F.3d 1207, 1213 (5th

Cir. 1995); Lockhart v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 879 F.2d 43, 51-52 (3d Cir.

1989). Under an abuse of discretion standard, we will not disturb the

underlying decision unless we have a definite and firm conviction that the

district court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of

permissible choice in the circumstances. See Richardson v. Missouri Pacific

R.R. Co., 186 F.3d 1273, 1276 (10th Cir. 1999).

Class actions under the ADEA are authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 626(b),

which expressly borrows the opt-in class action mechanism of the Fair Labor

Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (1994). Section 216(b) provides for

a class action 3 where the complaining employees are “similarly situated.”

Unlike class actions under Rule 23, “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to

any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party

and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.” Id.

The overriding question here is whether Thiessen and the twenty-two

opt-in plaintiffs are “similarly situated” for purposes of § 216(b).

Unfortunately, § 216(b) does not define the term “similarly situated,” and there

3
“Of course, this is not a true Rule 23 class action.” Kelley v. Alamo , 964
F.2d 747, 747 n.1 (8th Cir. 1992). “Many courts and commentators, however,
have used the vernacular of the Rule 23 class action for simplification and ease of
understanding when discussing representative cases brought pursuant to § 16(b)
of the FLSA.” Id.

10
is little circuit law on the subject. Federal district courts have adopted or

discussed at least three approaches to determining whether plaintiffs are

“similarly situated” for purposes of § 216(b). See, e.g., Mooney, 54 F.3d at

1213 (discussing two different approaches adopted by district courts); Bayles v.

American Med. Response of Colo., Inc., 950 F. Supp. 1053, 1058 (D. Colo.

1996). Under the first approach, a court determines, on an ad hoc case-by-case

basis, whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated.” Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1213. In

utilizing this approach, a court typically makes an initial “notice stage”

determination of whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated.” Vaszlavik v.

Storage Tech. Corp., 175 F.R.D. 672, 678 (D. Colo. 1997). In doing so, a court

“‘require[s] nothing more than substantial allegations that the putative class

members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan.’” Id.

(quoting Bayles, 950 F. Supp. at 1066). At the conclusion of discovery (often

prompted by a motion to decertify), the court then makes a second

determination, utilizing a stricter standard of “similarly situated.” Id. at 678.

During this “second stage” analysis, a court reviews several factors, including

“(1) disparate factual and employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2)

the various defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to

each plaintiff; (3) fairness and procedural considerations; and (4) whether

11
plaintiffs made the filings required by the ADEA before instituting suit.” Id. 4

Under the second approach, district courts have incorporated into

§ 216(b) the requirements of current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. See

Bayles, 950 F. Supp. at 1060-61 (discussing cases adopting this approach). For

example, in Shushan v. University of Colo., 132 F.R.D. 263 (D. Colo. 1990),

the district court concluded “that Rule 23(a)’s four prerequisites [numerosity,

commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation] and 23(b)(3)’s

requirement that common questions of fact predominate should be used to

determine whether plaintiffs are similarly situated.” Bayles, 950 F. Supp. at

1061 (describing Shushan holding).

In a third approach, district courts have suggested incorporating into

§ 216(b) the requirements of the pre-1966 version of Rule 23, which allowed

for “spurious” class actions. See Bayles, 950 F. Supp. at 1064 (holding that,

because Advisory Committee Notes to the 1966 amendments make clear that

the amendments were not intended to affect § 216(b) actions, “if Rule 23's

standards apply . . . at all, it must be through Rule 23 as it existed prior to

1966”). Under the pre-1966 version of Rule 23, the “character of the right

sought to be enforced for” the class of plaintiffs must be “several,” there must

4
We note that the Eleventh Circuit recently endorsed this “two-tiered”
approach to certification of § 216(b) opt-in classes. See Hipp v. Liberty National
Life Ins. Co. , 2001 WL 575489 (11th Cir. May 29, 2001).

12
be “a common question of law or fact affecting the several rights,” and “a

common relief” must be sought. Id. Further, under the old Rule 23, district

courts “had inherent authority to refuse to proceed collectively where it would

waste judicial resources or unfairly prejudice the party opposing the proposed

class.” Id. at 1065.

In the present case, the district court adopted the ad hoc approach to

determining whether the plaintiffs were “similarly situated” for purposes of

§ 216(b). It first conditionally certified the class during the course of

discovery, applying a fairly lenient standard for what constituted “similarly

situated.” During its second-stage analysis (prompted by the defendants’

motion to decertify), the court applied a stricter standard, focusing on three

factors: “(1) whether a sufficient link existed between the alleged blocker

policy and the challenged employment decisions; (2) whether individual issues

would predominate at trial; and (3) whether a trial of the action could be

coherently managed and evidence presented in a manner that would not confuse

the jury or unduly prejudice any party.” Thiessen II, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 1136.

Ultimately, the district court concluded that all three factors warranted

decertifying the class.

With respect to the first factor, the district court concluded “the mere fact

that plaintiffs suffered adverse employment actions after having been

13
designated as ‘blockers,’ standing alone, [wa]s insufficient to support an

inference that a causal connection exist[ed] between the blocker policy and the

adverse actions, particularly in light of the significant time lag and critical

intervening events.” Id. at 1140. The “significant time lag” was the time

period between the plaintiffs’ alleged designations as “blockers” in 1993 and

the filing of Thiessen’s EEOC charge in February 1996, which the district court

concluded allowed Thiessen and the other opt-in plaintiffs to reach back 300

days from the charge, or until approximately April 11, 1995. The “critical

intervening events” included the express repudiation of the “blocker policy” by

MRCSI CEO Gail Lanik in the fall of 1994. 5 Because there was insufficient

evidence of a “causal link between the blocker policy or plaintiffs’ purported

blocker status and the challenged employment actions,” the district court stated

5
Shortly after Lanik assumed the reins as CEO of MRCSI, she terminated
employee Rick Richards, an older, white executive who had worked for the
company for years and who had allegedly been classified as a “blocker” in 1993.
Following his discharge, Richards filed an EEOC charge of age discrimination (it
is unclear from the record whether he also filed a lawsuit). Defendants’ legal
department responded to the charge by investigating the origination and
implementation of the blocker policy and, according to plaintiffs, by purging
company files of documents pertaining to the policy. Ultimately, defendants
settled with Richards regarding his claim of discrimination. Following these
events, defendants’ counsel advised Lanik that she should expressly repudiate the
blocker policy. Lanik did so in the fall of 1994; more specifically, in a series of
meetings that included most of defendants’ employees, Lanik stated there was no
blocker policy and that employment decisions were to be made on the basis of
merit. Plaintiffs allege that, notwithstanding this purported repudiation,
defendants continued to maintain and apply the blocker policy.

14
it could not “conclude that the plaintiffs [we]re similarly situated for purposes

of proceeding as a collective action.” Id. at 1141.

In conducting its analysis of the first factor, the district court also

rejected the suggestion forwarded by Thiessen that it should apply a summary

judgment-type standard in determining whether, for purposes of the “similarly

situated” analysis, there was a sufficient link between the blocker policy and

the adverse employment actions taken against plaintiffs. Instead, the court

concluded that whether plaintiffs were “similarly situated” was a factual

determination it was entitled to make based on the evidence presented by the

parties.

With respect to the second factor, the district court noted that defendants

had come forward with “highly individualized” defenses with regard to each of

the various adverse employment actions alleged by plaintiffs. Id. at 1142.

Allowing defendants to assert these defenses during a collective trial, the court

concluded, would effectively result in “23 individual jury trials to determine

defendants’ liability to each plaintiff.” Id. at 1143. Although the court

acknowledged the “common thread” of the blocker policy, it nevertheless

concluded that “the judicial inefficiencies” associated with resolving “what

appear[ed] to be 23 distinct cases” clearly outweighed “any potential benefits

in proceeding as a collective action.” Id.

15
 With respect to the third factor, the district court noted that plaintiffs had

proposed separating the trial into two phases. Plaintiffs proposed that during

the first phase of the trial the court “would submit the pattern and practice

allegations as well as the individual claims and damages of nine plaintiffs

[seven of whom appeared on various lists of proposed blockers, and two of

whom were told they were blockers].” Id. According to plaintiffs, this initial

phase would “involve a determination of common class issues relating to the

existence, implementation, and discriminatory nature of the Blocker Policy as

well as class issues regarding wilfulness under the ADEA.” Id. “If the jury

determined that the blocker policy existed and that defendants had engaged in a

pattern and practice of age discrimination, according to plaintiffs’ proposed

plan, then the same jury would . . . hear Phase Two of the trial, which would

involve the remaining 14 plaintiffs.” Id. at 1143-44.

The district court concluded that plaintiffs’ proposed trial plan had

“numerous, serious deficiencies.” Id. at 1144. In particular, the court

concluded that plaintiffs’ plan “render[ed] individualized consideration of the

claims impossible and impose[d] extraordinary burdens on the jury, both in

terms of the quantity of evidence and the length of trial.” Id. Thus, the court

stated that “the absence of any workable trial management plan . . .

reinforce[d]” its decision to decertify the class. Id.

16
 The initial question, which we address de novo, is whether it was proper

for the district court to adopt the ad hoc approach in determining whether

plaintiffs were “similarly situated” for purposes of § 216(b). See Mooney, 54

F.3d at 1213 (applying a de novo standard of review in determining whether

district court applied the proper legal standard in decertifying a class).

Arguably, the ad hoc approach is the best of the three approaches outlined

because it is not tied to the Rule 23 standards. Congress clearly chose not to

have the Rule 23 standards apply to class actions under the ADEA, and instead

adopted the “similarly situated” standard. To now interpret this “similarly

situated” standard by simply incorporating the requirements of Rule 23 (either

the current version or the pre-1966 version) would effectively ignore Congress’

directive. 6 That said, however, there is little difference in the various

approaches. All approaches allow for consideration of the same or similar

factors, and generally provide a district court with discretion to deny

certification for trial management reasons. We find no error on the part of the

district court in adopting the ad hoc approach.

6
The Eleventh Circuit has apparently rejected the notion of relying on the
Rule 23 requirements in deciding whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated” for
purposes of § 216(b). Grayson v. K-Mart Corp. , 79 F.3d 1086, 1096 n.12 (11th
Cir. 1996) (“it is clear that the requirements for pursuing a § 216(b) class action
are independent of, and unrelated to, the requirements for class action under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”) .

17
 Turning to the merits of Thiessen’s arguments, the question is whether

the district court abused its discretion in applying the ad hoc approach and

decertifying the class. If plaintiffs were simply attempting to collectively

assert their individual claims of discrimination, the decision to decertify would

appear to be entirely proper. The problem, however, is that plaintiffs were

asserting a pattern-or-practice claim modeled on International Brotherhood of

Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). In particular, plaintiffs

alleged that defendants, by way of the MDP and the blocker policy, had a

company-wide policy of age discrimination. Stated differently, plaintiffs

alleged that it was defendants’ standard operating procedure, implemented

through the MDP and the blocker policy, to discriminate against employees

(particularly executive employees) on the basis of age. Although the district

court acknowledged that all of the plaintiffs relied on the existence of the

“blocker policy” to support their claims, it failed to recognize the pattern-or-

practice nature of the class claim. For the reasons discussed below, we

conclude the district court’s failure in this regard adversely impacted its

“similarly situated” analysis and resulted in an abuse of discretion.

Pattern-or-practice cases differ significantly from the far more common

cases involving one or more claims of individualized discrimination. In a case

involving individual claims of discrimination, the focus is on the reason(s) for

18
the particular employment decisions at issue. Cooper v. Fed. Reserve Bank of

Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 876 (1984). In contrast, the initial focus in a pattern-

or-practice case is not on individual employment decisions, “but on a pattern of

discriminatory decisionmaking.” Id. Thus, the order and allocation of proof,

as well as the overall nature of the trial proceedings, in a pattern-or-practice

case differ dramatically from a case involving only individual claims of

discrimination. Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 357-62.

Pattern-or-practice cases are typically tried in two or more stages.

During the first stage of trial, the plaintiffs’ “burden is to demonstrate that

unlawful discrimination has been a regular procedure or policy followed by an

employer or group of employers.” Id. at 360. Thus, “[a]t the initial, ‘liability’

stage of a pattern-or-practice suit the [plaintiffs are] not required to offer

evidence that each person for whom [they] will ultimately seek relief was a

victim of the employer’s discriminatory policy.” Id. Instead, plaintiffs’

“burden is to establish that such a policy existed.” Id. “The burden then shifts

to the employer to defeat the prima facie showing of a pattern or practice by

demonstrating that the [plaintiffs’] proof is either inaccurate or insignificant.”

Id. “If an employer fails to rebut the inference that arises from the [plaintiffs’]

prima facie case,” the finder of fact can conclude “that a violation has

occurred” and the trial court can award prospective equitable relief. Id. at 361.

19
If the plaintiffs also seek “individual relief for the victims of the discriminatory

practice,” the case moves into the second or subsequent stages. Id. In these

additional proceedings, 7 it must be determined whether each individual plaintiff

was a victim of the discriminatory practice. Importantly, by having prevailed

in the first stage of trial, the individual plaintiffs reap a significant advantage

for purposes of the second stage: they are entitled to a presumption that the

employer had discriminated against them. See Cooper, 467 U.S. at 875. 8

Returning to the district court’s decision to decertify, we conclude the

district court erred in its determination of “whether a sufficient link existed

between the alleged blocker policy and the challenged employment decisions,”

Thiessen II, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 1136. Given the pattern-or-practice nature of

plaintiffs' claim, this factor necessarily encompasses factual issues relevant to

both the first and second stages of trial, e.g., whether the blocker policy

7
“The second stage of a pattern and practice claim is essentially a series of
individual lawsuits, except that there is a shift of the burden of proof in the
plaintiffs’ favor.” Newberg on Class Actions , § 4.17 (3d. ed. 1992).
8
If the plaintiffs do not prevail during the first stage of a pattern-or-
practice trial, they are nevertheless entitled to proceed on their individual claims
of discrimination. See Cooper , 467 U.S. at 878 (“It could not be more plain that
the rejection of a claim of classwide discrimination does not warrant the
conclusion that no member of the class could have a valid individual claim.”).
Naturally, however, they are left to proceed under the normal McDonnell Douglas
framework, rather than benefitting from a presumption of discrimination. Id. at
880.

20
continued after Lanik's alleged repudiation and, if it did, whether a link existed

between that policy and the individual employment decisions affecting the

named plaintiffs. The problem is that the district court effectively made

findings regarding these issues in the guise of determining whether plaintiffs

were “similarly situated.” See Adamson v. Bowen, 855 F.2d 668, 676 (10th

Cir. 1988) (holding that district court, in making class certification decision,

should avoid focusing on merits of underlying class action); Anderson v. City

of Albuquerque, 690 F.2d 796, 799 (10th Cir. 1982) (reversing and remanding

denial of class certification where district court indicated its belief that plaintiff

could not prevail on individual claims). By doing so, the district court

essentially deprived plaintiffs of their right to have the issues decided by a

jury, or to at least have the court determine, under summary judgment

standards, whether there was sufficient evidence to send the issue to the jury.

Further, the district court failed to take into account the fact that, if plaintiffs

were able to establish a pattern or practice of discrimination, they would be

entitled to a presumption that the individual employment actions taken against

them were the result of such discrimination. Indeed, the district court

effectively deprived plaintiffs of this procedural advantage as well.

The district court’s consideration of the second factor (whether

individual issues would predominate at trial), was likewise adversely affected

21
by its failure to recognize that plaintiffs were proceeding under a pattern-or-

practice theory. Although it is true that defendants asserted “highly

individualized” defenses to each of the instances of individual discrimination

asserted by plaintiffs, those defenses would not become the focal point until the

second stage of trial and could be dealt with in a series of individual trials, if

necessary. With respect to the first stage of trial and the initial issues of

whether they had in place a pattern or practice of discrimination and whether it

continued after the fall of 1994, defendants had only a few common defenses.

Specifically, defendants alleged that the blocker policy, though perhaps

mentioned by Faucette at various times, was never implemented anywhere in

the organization and was expressly repudiated by Lanik. Further, with respect

to the discriminatory nature of the MDP program, defendants claimed it was

open to all employees, including those over age forty. Thus, the presence of

the “highly individualized” defenses clearly did not, as the district court

concluded, outweigh “any potential benefits in proceeding as a collective

action.” As previously noted, there was a significant procedural advantage for

plaintiffs to proceed in a collective action: if they prevailed in the first stage of

trial, they would be entitled to a presumption of discrimination in subsequent

proceedings to decide the merits of their individual claims. By bowing to the

individualized defenses relevant only to the second stage of trial, the district

22
court deprived plaintiffs of this opportunity.

The district court’s consideration of the third factor (trial management

concerns) was also adversely affected by its failure to recognize the pattern-or-

practice nature of plaintiffs’ claim. Most notably, the district court failed to

acknowledge that plaintiffs’ proposed trial plan, though perhaps deficient in

some respects, was consistent with the framework outlined in Teamsters for

pattern-or-practice claims. The court also failed to make any effort to modify

the plaintiffs’ proposed trial plan. Finally, the district court was wrong in

concluding that trying the case in two phases, as suggested by plaintiffs,

“render[ed] individualized consideration of the claims impossible.” Thiessen

II, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 1143.

We conclude the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the

class. Taking into consideration the “pattern or practice” nature of plaintiffs’

lawsuit, as discussed above, plaintiffs were, in fact, “similarly situated” for

purposes of § 216(b). In particular, many of the plaintiffs were specifically

listed or classified by defendants as “blockers” and suffered adverse

employment consequences during the relevant time period. The remainder of

the plaintiffs, though never specifically classified by defendants as “blockers,”

fell within the alleged definition of “blockers” and were likewise subjected to

adverse employment consequences during the relevant time period.

23
 A district court considering a motion to certify [or decertify] is entitled

to look past the pleadings and examine the evidence produced during

discovery, but when an ADEA plaintiff relies upon a “pattern or practice”

theory and comes forward with legitimate evidence to support that theory, the

district court must take into account the framework for pattern-or-practice cases

outlined by the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v.

United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977). That did not occur in this case, and hence

our application of those factors using the correct legal framework. We do not

hold that whenever there is evidence of a pattern-or-practice, a class must be

certified. Whether certification or decertification is appropriate depends upon

application of the factors we have identified in the ad hoc approach.

Grant of summary judgment

In connection with their motion to decertify, defendants moved for

summary judgment with respect to all of Thiessen’s claims for relief. After

granting defendants’ motion to decertify, the district court granted defendants’

summary judgment motion in its entirety. In doing so, the court treated

Thiessen’s claims as non-class, individual claims of discrimination. The court

concluded that “three of Mr. Thiessen’s claims, (i.e., his 1993 failure-to-

promote claim; his 'phase-out' claim; and his downgraded performance claim”

24
were time barred because they occurred more than 300 days prior to the filing

of Thiessen’s EEOC charge. Thiessen II, 13 F. Supp. 2d at 1147. As for the

remaining two claims (the denial of the two 1995 RPC manager positions), the

district court concluded, after analyzing them under the McDonnell Douglas

framework, that Thiessen had “failed to produce evidence from which a

reasonable factfinder could conclude that defendants’ proffered explanations

for [their] actions were ‘unworthy of credence.’” Id. at 1149.

On appeal, Thiessen contends the district court erred in granting

summary judgment in favor of defendants. We review the district court’s grant

of summary judgment de novo. Kidd v. Taos Ski Valley, Inc., 88 F.3d 848,

851 (10th Cir. 1996). Summary judgment is proper only when “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact

and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 56(c). We view the evidence and all reasonable inferences derived

therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kidd, 88 F.3d at

851.

As with defendants’ motion to decertify, proper consideration of

defendants’ motion for summary judgment must take into account the fact that

Thiessen and the opt-in plaintiffs were asserting a pattern-or-practice claim.

25
Although there is little case authority discussing summary judgment motions in

pattern-or-practice cases, we see no reason why summary judgment motions

cannot be aimed at both the first and second stage issues. Presumably,

however, such motions must be analyzed in light of the orders of proof peculiar

to pattern-or-practice cases, and must be filed and considered at an appropriate

stage of the proceedings. During the first stage of a pattern-or-practice case,

for example, a summary judgment motion (whether filed by plaintiffs or

defendants) must focus solely on whether there is sufficient evidence

demonstrating that defendants had in place a pattern or practice of

discrimination during the relevant limitations period. 9 See Teamsters, 431 U.S.

at 357-61. Until the first stage is resolved, we question whether it is proper for

a court to consider summary judgment motions regarding second stage issues

9
We note that the outcome of the first stage will essentially resolve the
question of whether plaintiffs can properly rely on the “continuing violation”
doctrine and seek relief for alleged acts of discrimination occurring more than
300 days prior to the filing of Thiessen’s EEOC charge. See Purrington v. Univ.
of Utah , 996 F.2d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir. 1993) (indicating plaintiffs can invoke
continuing violation doctrine by demonstrating “the maintenance of a company-
wide policy of discrimination both before and during the limitations period”); see
also Morgan v. National R.R. Passenger Corp. , 232 F.3d 1008, 1015-16 (9th Cir.
2000) (“The second way to establish a continuing violation is to show a
systematic policy or practice of discrimination that operated, in part, within the
limitations period – a systemic violation.”); Lawson v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co.
of Am. , 101 F.3d 218, 222 (1st Cir. 1996) (noting that systemic violation has its
roots in discriminatory policy or practice, and, so long as policy or practice itself
continues into limitation period, challenger may be deemed to have filed timely
complaint under continuing violation theory).

26
(i.e., whether individual plaintiffs are entitled to relief). Even assuming,

arguendo, such motions can properly be considered prior to resolution of the

first stage, it is clear they would not be analyzed under the typical McDonnell-

Douglas framework. See id. (rejecting use of McDonnell-Douglas framework

in pattern-or-pattern cases); see also Davoll v. Webb, 194 F.3d 1116, 1147

(10th Cir. 1999) (discussing Teamster’s rejection of the McDonnell Douglas

test in pattern-or-practice cases). Instead, they would operate under the

presumption that (1) defendants had in place a pattern or practice of

discrimination, and (2) all employment decisions regarding the class plaintiffs

were made pursuant to that pattern or practice. See Teamsters, 431 U.S. at 362.

We conclude the district court erred in granting summary judgment in

favor of defendants with respect to Thiessen’s claims for relief. Consistent

with our discussion of the class decertification decision, it is apparent that the

first stage issues in this pattern-or-practice case have yet to be resolved. Thus,

Thiessen’s claims cannot at this point be treated as non-class claims of

individual discrimination or analyzed under the McDonnell Douglas

framework.

Refusal to allow certain plaintiffs to join class

When it initially certified the plaintiff class during discovery, the district

27
court addressed several issues, including whether the proposed opt-in plaintiffs,

none of whom filed EEOC charges, could piggyback on the EEOC charge filed

by Thiessen. 10 The district court first concluded that Thiessen’s EEOC charge

asserted allegations of class-wide discrimination and satisfied the notice

requirements of 29 U.S.C. § 626(d). The district court then concluded that

only “those individuals who could have filed timely EEOC charges at the time

Mr. Thiessen actually filed his charge” could join as opt-in plaintiffs. More

specifically, the court concluded that only those individuals who suffered

adverse employment actions in the 300-day period prior to the filing of

Thiessen’s EEOC charge could opt in. Accordingly, the district court excluded

from the class eight proposed opt-in plaintiffs, seven of whom “resigned or

were terminated from employment long before the start of the 300-day filing

period,” and one of whom “failed to allege any discriminatory treatment in the

300-day filing window.” Thiessen I, 996 F. Supp. at 1078.

On appeal, Thiessen contends the district court erred in excluding these

eight individuals from the opt-in class. According to Thiessen, the district

court failed to consider evidence that defendants actively concealed the

10
Normally, “[a] person who believes that he has been the victim of age
discrimination must file a charge with the EEOC within 180 days of the adverse
employment decision . . . if he is in a ‘non-deferral state,’ 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1);
and within 300 days of the employer’s wrongful conduct if he is in a ‘deferral
state,’ 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(2).” Grayson , 79 F.3d at 1100 .

28
existence of the blocker policy. This evidence, Thiessen suggests, should have

equitably tolled the time period for filing EEOC charges based on the blocker

policy, and should have allowed all the proposed plaintiffs to opt in to the

class. As previously noted, we apply an abuse of discretion standard in

reviewing a district court’s decision to certify a class. Mooney, 54 F.3d at

1213.

Federal courts “‘universally hold that an individual who has not filed an

administrative charge can opt-in to a suit filed by any similarly situated

plaintiff under certain conditions.’” Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Anson

v. Univ. of Tex. Health Sci. Ctr., 962 F.2d 539, 540 (5th Cir. 1992)); see

Mistretta v. Sandia Corp., 639 F.2d 588, 594-95 (10th Cir. 1980) (adopting

single-filing rule in ADEA action). “This so-called ‘single-filing rule’

generally allows a plaintiff, who did not file an EEOC charge, to piggyback on

the EEOC complaint filed by another person who is similarly situated.”

Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1223; see Gitlitz v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 129

F.3d 554, 558 (11th Cir. 1997) (“A plaintiff who has not filed an individual

EEOC charge may invoke the single-filing rule where such plaintiff is similarly

situated to the person who actually filed an EEOC charge, and where the EEOC

charge actually filed gave the employer notice of the collective or class-wide

nature of the charge.”). “The policy behind the single filing rule is that ‘[i]t

29
would be wasteful, if not vain, for numerous employees, all with the same

grievance, to have to process many identical complaints with the EEOC.’”

Mooney, 54 F.3d at 1223 (quoting Oatis v. Crown Zellerbach Corp., 398 F.2d

496, 499 (5th Cir. 1968)). “As long as the EEOC and the company are aware

of the nature and scope of the allegations, the purposes behind the filing

requirement are satisfied and no injustice or contravention of congressional

intent occurs by allowing piggybacking.” Id. at 1223.

Our threshold task is to determine the time frame that gave rise to

Thiessen’s claims of discrimination. See Jones v. Firestone Tire and Rubber

Co., 977 F.2d 527, 532 (11th Cir. 1992) (holding that, for purposes of single-

filing rule, the first issue is the “effective scope of” the EEOC charge actually

filed). Thiessen is relying on the continuing violation doctrine to bring in

claims that arose more than 300 days prior to the filing of his EEOC charge.

More specifically, Thiessen alleges that defendants implemented the blocker

policy and began taking adverse action against him in pursuit of that policy

beginning in September 1993. Further, Thiessen alleges that, notwithstanding

Lanik’s repudiation in the fall of 1994, defendants continued the policy and

applied it against him in 1994 and 1995. If Thiessen can substantiate his

allegations, the time frame for his claims would generally be from September

30
1993 11 through 1995. Accordingly, it would be this time frame during which

the district court should make its determination of which opt-in plaintiffs to

include in the class. In other words, the class should, at this stage of the

proceedings, include all those plaintiffs whose related claims (i.e., adverse

employment actions resulting from application of the blocker policy) arose

between September 1993 and 1995. 12 Necessarily, this would include at least

four of the eight excluded individuals, all of whom resigned or were laid off

during or after September 1993. 13

To view the problem in a different way, the question could be posed as

whether each of the proposed opt-in plaintiffs could have filed a timely EEOC

charge at the time Thiessen filed his charge. Because all of the proposed opt-in

11
Although Thiessen contends defendants generally had an ageist working
environment, there is little, if any, evidence indicating that the blocker policy was
actually implemented until mid-1993.
12
If plaintiffs can survive summary judgment, the question of when the
blocker policy was implemented, if at all, and how long it lasted, are factual
questions for the jury. Assuming, arguendo , the case proceeds to the first stage
of trial and the jury makes findings on these issues, those findings would be
controlling for purposes of finalizing the class for purposes of the second stage
proceedings. In this regard, we note there is some limited authority for a district
court certifying a class for purposes of the first stage issue and reserving decision
on certification for the second stage. See Butler v. Home Depot , 70 Fair Empl.
Prac. Cas. (BNA) 51, 1996 WL 421436 (N.D.Cal. 1996).
13
These individuals include Julia-Bates Allgood (resigned September
1993), Delilah Hicks (resigned April 1994), Eugene Laurenzo (laid-off September
1993), and Larry Nobles (laid-off September 1993).

31
plaintiffs rely on the continuing violation doctrine, all could conceivably have

filed timely charges at the time Thiessen filed his charge. 14 See Purrington v.

Univ. of Utah, 996 F.2d 1025, 1028 (10th Cir. 1993) (noting that the

continuing violation exception can be invoked by showing “the maintenance of

a company-wide policy of discrimination both before and during the limitations

period”). Accordingly, on remand, the district court is directed to include in

the opt-in class all those plaintiffs who allegedly suffered adverse employment

actions from September 1993 through 1995.

Having reached this conclusion, we find it unnecessary to address

Thiessen’s active concealment/equitable tolling argument. Even assuming,

arguendo, defendants actively concealed the existence and implementation of

the blocker policy from plaintiffs, only those plaintiffs who suffered adverse

employment actions after implementation of the policy could be included

within the class.

14
The few decisions dealing with “pattern-or-practice” cases appear to
suggest the plaintiff class can include all employees affected by the illegal
pattern-or-practice, regardless of whether or not they filed EEOC charges. See
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody , 422 U.S. 405, 414 n.8 (1975) (rejecting
defendants’ contention “that no backpay can be awarded to those unnamed parties
in the plaintiff class who have not themselves filed charges with the EEOC”);
Teamsters , 431 U.S. at 331 (discussing scope of affected class entitled to
individual relief); Alexander v. Local 496, Laborers’ Int’l Union of North
America , 177 F.3d 394, 399, 401 (6 th Cir. 1999) (allowing all plaintiffs, including
those who applied for jobs many years prior to filing of suit, to recover damages
flowing from policy of discrimination).

32
Deposition of defendants’ corporate counsel

Thiessen contends the district court erred in refusing to allow him to

depose defendants’ corporate counsel, Sarah Gorman, regarding her

investigation of the blocker policy and the alleged purging of corporate

documents pertaining to the blocker policy. According to Thiessen, Gorman

was the person who, in the spring of 1994 in response to a charge of age

discrimination filed by Rick Richards, directed employees to purge company

files of documents pertaining to the “blocker policy.” Thiessen contends he

has a right to depose Gorman regarding these “cover-up” activities,

notwithstanding her status as corporate counsel and her involvement as counsel

in this case.

We review a district court’s determinations regarding waiver of attorney-

client privilege and work-product protection for abuse of discretion. Frontier

Ref., Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., 136 F.3d 695, 699 (10th Cir. 1998). In doing

so, however, we review the district court’s underlying factual findings for clear

error, and its rulings on purely legal questions de novo. Id.; see In re Grand

Jury Proceedings, 156 F.3d 1038, 1042 n.1 (10th Cir. 1998).

When the issue of deposing Gorman was raised in the district court, the

parties and the court agreed it was controlled by the rule announced in Shelton

33
v. American Motors Corp., 805 F.2d 1323, 1327 (8th Cir. 1986). 15 In Shelton,

the Eighth Circuit held that depositions of opposing counsel should be limited

to circumstances where the party seeking to take the deposition has shown that:

(1) no means exist to obtain the information other than to depose opposing

counsel; (2) the information sought is relevant and nonprivileged; and (3) the

information is crucial to the preparation of the case. After hearing arguments

on the issue, the district court concluded that Thiessen had failed to

demonstrate the first two requirements of the Shelton rule, i.e., that the

information sought from Gorman was unavailable elsewhere and that the

information was nonprivileged.

After reviewing the record on appeal, we find no abuse of discretion on

the part of the district court in refusing to allow Thiessen to depose Gorman.

In particular, Thiessen has failed to demonstrate that the district court’s factual

findings regarding the first Shelton requirement (i.e., the availability of other

avenues for obtaining the information) were clearly erroneous. It is therefore

unnecessary to address the district court’s ruling on the second Shelton

requirement (i.e., that the information sought was privileged).

15
Shelton was adopted by this court in Boughton v. Cotter Corp. , 65 F.3d
823, 830 (10th Cir. 1995).

34
 III.

The decision of the district court decertifying the class of opt-in

plaintiffs is REVERSED; the decision of the district court granting summary

judgment in favor of defendants with respect to plaintiff Thiessen’s individual

claims of age discrimination is REVERSED; the decision of the district court

excluding eight individuals from the opt-in class is REVERSED; the case is

REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this

opinion.

35