# Hartman v. Duffey

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · April 5, 1994 · 19 F.3d 1459

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930162

## Case

- **Full name:** Carolee Brady HARTMAN All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph DUFFEY, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional Defendants-Appellees Carolee Brady HARTMAN All Other Approx. 50 Additional v. Joseph DUFFEY, Director, United States Information Agency All Other One Additional
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** April 5, 1994
- **Citations:** 19 F.3d 1459; 305 U.S. App. D.C. 256; 1994 WL 109062
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Randolph
- **Judges:** Henderson, Randolph, Wald
- **Cited by:** 125 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930162

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that an employee can challenge dis- crimination in “different job categories where the primary DUKES v. WAL-MART, INC. 1359 practices used to discriminate in the different categories are themselves similar. While it may be prudent to have the class divided into sub…
- recognizing that an employee can challenge discrimination in "different job categories where the primary practices used to 79 [474 F.3d 1233] 80 discriminate in the different categories are themselves similar. While it may be prudent to have the class divided into sub-classes …
- holding plaintiffs’ challenge to the defendant’s “subjective” decision-making did not warrant a finding of commonality; “While plaintiffs’ statistics may have demonstrated that discrimination against women applicants to the six [] job categories was afoot, nothing in the recor…
- reversing district court’s class certification ruling and remanding the case to the district court for a determination of whether the class should be certified because the class representative’s “complaint and motions for class certification ... evince[d] a complete absence of…
- noting that some cross-appeals are filed to protect contingent interests of a party that has prevailed in the trial court, under the theory that “as soon as the appellate court decides to modify the trial court’s judgment, that judgment may become ‘adverse’ to the cross-appell…

## Opinion text

RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge,
concurring, in which Circuit Judge HENDERSON joins:
On remand, the district court conscientiously reconsidered its 1978 conditional certification of the class and, after briefly describing General Telephone Co. of the Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 , 102 S.Ct. 2364 , 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982), decided to adhere to its earlier decision, although the court recognized that under Rule 23(c), Fed. R.Civ.P., it “could even now deny certification.” Hartman v. Wick, 600 F.Supp. 361 , 367 n. 2 (D.D.C.1984). The Agency quite obviously could not have challenged, in the 1982 appeal, this 1984 ruling. The Agency’s failure to take a cross-appeal therefore could not have waived its objections to the ruling. The current appeal is the Agency’s first and only chance for appellate review of the district court’s decision to maintain its original class certification despite Falcon . For that reason alone the certification issue is before us.
I agree with the balance of the court’s opinion and therefore respectfully concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930162. Public record. Not legal advice.