Ronald Clausnitzer v. Federal Express Corporation

08-56155Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNov 20, 2009

Full text

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The Honorable John W. Sedwick, United States District Judge for the**
District of Alaska, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD CLAUSNITZER; GABRIEL
CONTRERAS; ANDY KUBICKI;
FRANK MARTINEZ; JODY LYNN
MITCHELL, and all those similarly
situated,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-56155
D.C. No. 8:05-cv-01269-DOC-AN
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2009
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and SEDWICK, District**
Judge.
FILED
NOV 20 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
The named plaintiffs in a proposed collective action against Federal Express
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., appeal
the district court’s denial of class certification and summary judgment for the
defendant.
The district court did not err in denying class certification and dismissing the
claims of opt-in plaintiffs. The district court correctly denied certification because
the plaintiffs failed to show they were “similarly situated” as required by 29 U.S.C.
§ 216(c). There was a wide variety of circumstances surrounding each of the
alleged adverse employment actions. The district court did not require that
plaintiffs had to have the same routes, hours, and shifts as a condition of class
certification.
Summary judgment was appropriate for the individual named plaintiffs
because they failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination.
Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Energy Lab is not applicable because it deals with the
defendant’s burden after the plaintiffs establish a prima facie case. See 128 S. Ct.
2395, 2398 (2008).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.