IN RE: Roadway Express, Inc., Employment Practices Litigation

i Case MDL No. 155 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 1 of 5
- BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL HEISE Pave awMULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION FIL	= ee
IN RE ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC. y K0y-g 5%
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION DATED 155ee ERK OF Tigpyar. OPINION	AND ORDER
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH *, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER,
JOSEPH S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM
This litigation consists of three class actions in the
Southern District of Texas against Roadway Express, Inc., the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Southern Conference
of Teamsters and the Houston local teamsters union; and a single
class action in the Western District of Texas against the same
major defendants and the San Antonio local teamsters union.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 by favoring whites for the higher paying posi-
tion of long-haul driver while assigning non-whites the lower pay-
ing position of city driver. They also allege that defendants’
seniority system and transfer policies perpetuate the discrimina-
tory hiring pattern by locking plaintiffs in their lower-paying
city driver positions. Plaintiffs in the Western Texas action
purport to represent all Mexican-Americans or Blacks who do city
driving jobs for defendant Roadway at terminals in several major
cities within the State of Texas. Plaintiffs in each of the
*¥ Judge Murrah was unable	to attend the hearing and, therefore,
took no part in the consideration or decision of this matter.

. Case MDL No. 155 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 2 of 5
.. i ,.
Southern Texas actions purport to represent a substantially similar
class.
Plaintiffs in two of the actions pending in the Southern
District of Texas move the Panel for an order transferring all
actions to the Western District of Texas for coordinated or consoli-
dated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. All defend-
ants oppose transfer. We find that these actions involve common
questions of fact and that their transfer under Section 1407 to
the Western District of Texas will best serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
conduct of the litigation.
Defendants concede that these actions share common ques-
tions of fact concerning the interpretation of identical clauses
in the master freight contracts, but argue that these questions
entail simple discovery procedures, thus making transfer under
Section 1407 unnecessary. They contend that the bulk of discovery
will involve non-common factual issues because the discrimination
alleged in these actions relates to different terminals and
different local unions. :
We do not agree that this litigation is inappropriate
for Section 1407 treatment. First, transfer will ensure that
duplicative discovery on the conceded common factual issues is
avoided. And any discovery concerning non-common issues can be
expeditiously scheduled by the transferee judge without sacrific-
ing the benefits of coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceed-
ings. Secondly, and perhaps crucially,	the conflicting and over-
lapping class allegations contained in the complaints raise

2 Case MDL No. 155 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 3 of 5
> * - 3 =
the indubitable possibility of inconsistent class determinations
by: courts	of coordinate jurisdiction. We have consistently held
that the existence of and the need to eliminate this possibility
presents a highly persuasive reason favoring transfer under Section
1407. See, e.g, In re Equity Funding Corporation of America
Securities Litigation, 375 F. Supp. 1378, 1385 (J.£.M.L. ]
1974). |
In addition, Roadway's employment practices nationwide
were the target of a government enforcement action in the Northern
District of Ohio. Following extended pretrial and trial proceed-
ings, a consent decree was entered in that action in September
of 1970. A preliminary question in each of the actions in this
litigation is the effect of the Ohio consent decree. Counsel
advise us that the resolution of this issue will require review
of considerable documentary and testimonial evidence adduced in
the Ohio proceedings. Thus, transfer of these actions under
Section 1407 will result in a single ruling on this preliminary
question, thereby conserving judicial time and resources and
preventing the possibility of any inconsistent rulings.
Because the federal courts wherein these actions are
pending are in proximity to each other, the selection of either
RT as the transferee forum for this litigation will not substan-
© tially inconvenience any of the parties. We are persuaded, however,
that the Western District of Texas is the preferable transferee
district inasmuch	as the action pending in that district appears,
further advanced in pretrial proceedings.
\ |\ Ce

h Case MDL No. 155 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 4 of 5
-4 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that all actions listed
on the attached Schedule A pending in the Southern District	of
Texas be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Western
District of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned
to the Honorable Manuel L. Real, sitting by designation pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §292(d), for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 with the action
already pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.

. Case MDL No. 155 Document 2 Filed 05/06/15 Page 5 of 5
SCHEDULE A " DOCKET NO. 155
' SOUTHERN DLSTRICT OF TEXAS
Carl Owens, et al. v. Roadway Express, Civil Action
Inc., et al No. 72-H~1462
Joe H. Bush, et al. v. International Civil Action
Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, No. 72-H-1700
Warehousemen & Helpers of America,
et al.
George Hernandez Salazar, et al. v. Civil Action
Roadway Express, Inc., et al. No. 73-H-975
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Thomas Salinas, et al. v. Roadway Civil Action
Express, Inc., et al. No. SA-71-CA-254