IN RE: Texas Instruments Inc. Employment Practices Litigation

CT Case MDL No. 313 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 1 of 6
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL dno gy |
ox | MUTE .
: MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ER :
DEC-S pep?
IN RE TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INC. ) DOCKET NO. 313 Co oo
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION ) FAs t aa oo	Cha BE PANEL EE
OPINION AND ORDER
BEFORE JOHN MINOR WISDOM, CHAIRMAN, AND EDWARD WEINFELD, ;
EDWIN A. ROBSON, JOSEPH S. LORD, III*, STANLEY A. WEIGEL, IA 577 Co
ANDREW A. CAFFREY, AND ROY W. HARPER, JUDGES OF THE PANEL ; : L
PER CURIAM |
This litigation consists of two actions pending in two CL
sl a . 2 ~
federal districts: one in the Southern District of Texas EET SE
and one in the Northern District of Texas. : : . Ce
The plaintiff in the Southern District of Texas action B
is a Spanish-surnamed individual employed by Texas Instruments 3
Incorporated (TI) at its manufacturing facility in Stafford, :
Texas, a suburb of Houston. TI is the sole defendant in
this action. Plaintiff alleges that TI has engaged in a So
pattern and practice of employment discrimination on the basis CT PE
of race and national origin. This action was commenced as ST 0
a class action under Rule 23(b) (2), Fed.R.Civ.P., on behalf oe
of all Blacks and Spanish-surnamed Americans who are oo Ce
employed by TI at any of its facilities in the United States. 3 IE SL
* Judge Lord took no part in the decision of this matter. -

Case MDL No. 313 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	2 of 6
® On October 13, 1977, however, leave to proceed as a classaction was denied, and the action is therefore proceeding
as an individual action.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 1s
the plaintiff in the Northern District of Texas action.
The EEOC alleges, inter alia, that defendant TI committed
the following forms of employment discrimination at its
Dallas and Austin, Texas facilities: (1) discrimination
on the basis of race against Blacks through hiring, promotion
and discharge; (2) discrimination on the basis of sex against
males in hiring and in the maintenance of sex-segregated
C job classifications; (3) promotion discrimination onthe basis of national origin against Spanish-surnamed Americans:
and (4) discrimination against females with respect to
1
maternity leave and benefits policy.
1l/ The EEOC has moved for leave to file a supplemental complaint
which would expand the issues in this action to include the.
following allegations as to TI's Dallas and Austin sites: (1)
discrimination on the basis of race against Blacks through
training, recruitment and placement; (2) discrimination on the
basis of sex against females through promotion, training,
recruitment and placement; and (3) discrimination on the basis
of national origin against Spanish-surnamed Americans through
hiring, training, recruitment and placement. The EEOC's
supplemental complaint also seeks to raise a Texas-wide claim
on the issue of TI's maternity leave and benefits policy. The
motion for leave to file this supplemental complaint has been
briefed, argued and submitted for decision.

. | Case MDL No. 313 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	3 of 6 | :
' Plaintiff in the Southern District of Texas action moves
@ the Panel for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 transferring
that action to the Northern District of Texas for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending
there. TI opposes transfer.
We conclude that transfer under Section 1407 would not
necessarily serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
or promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation
and, accordingly, we deny the motion to transfer. |
Movant argues that these actions share numerous questions
of fact concerning widespread employment discrimination by TI.
Thus, movant asserts, absent Section 1407 proceedings, there
® is a danger of duplicative discovery and conflicting rulings
on pretrial matters.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Although the
scope of the complaint in theSouthern District of Texas
action is somewhat unclear because of the recent decision
concerning thé class action allegations in that complaint,
we recognize that the two actions before us may at least
| share some questions of fact concerning TI's alleged employment
discrimination on the basis of national origin against
Spanish-surnamed Americans. Nevertheless, only two actions
® are involved here and we are not convinced that these common

: Case MDL No. 313 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	4 of 6
factual questions are sufficiently complex or that the
@ accompanying discovery on those issues will be so time
consuming as to justify transfer under Section 1407.
See In re Southern Railway Employment Practices Litigation, :
—__F. Suwpp.___,____ (J.P.M.L., filed December 1 , 1977)
(slip opinion at 3); In re Scotch Whiskey, 299 F. Supp. 543, 544
(J.P.M.L. 1969). oo |
We observe that suitable alternatives to Section 1407
transfer are available to all parties in this litigation,
should the need for coordination between the two actions arise.
. Concerning the possibility of duplicative discovery, for |
® example, notices for a particular deposition could be filedin both actions, thereby making the deposition applicable
in each action; the parties could seek to agree upon a
stipulation that all discovery relevant to both actions may
be used in both actions; and any party could seek orders from
the two courts directing the parties to coordinate their
pretrial efforts. See In re Commercial Lighting Products, Inc.
Contract Litigation, 415 F. Supp. 392, 393 (J.P.M.L. 1976).
See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Part I, §3.11 (rev.
ed. 1977). In addition, consultation and cooperation between
the two concerned district courts, if deemed appropriate by
® those courts, coupled with the cooperation of the parties,

Case MDL No. 313 Document2 Filed 05/04/15 Page	5 of 6
. -5- |
® would be sufficient to minimize the possibility of conflicting,
pretrial rulings. See In re Southern Railway Employment Practices
Litigation, supra, ____ F. Supp. at. (slip opinion at 3-4).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to transfer
the actions listed on the following Schedule A be, and the
same hereby is, DENIED.
@ |
®

| Case MDL No. 313 Document 2 Filed 05/04/15 Page 6 of 6 :
. ° .
SCHEDULE A =-- Docket No. 313
4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Civil Action No.
Equal Employment Opportunity CA3-75-1093-G
Commission v. Texas Instruments, Inc.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Augustine V. Jalomo v. Texas 76-11-1119
Instruments, Inc.