|
Minch etal . v. City
of Chicago, No. 01 C 2586
The plaintiffs, former firefighters, have brought this
case to challenge the enactment and enforcement of defendant
City of Chicago' s ("Chicago") Mandatory Retirement
Ordinance ("MRO"), which requires all police
officers and firefighters to retire at the age of 63.
The plaintiffs move this court to certify them as representatives
of the class of all similarly situated potential plaintiffs
under Rule 23(b) (2) or Rule 23(b) (3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and to permit initial notice
of the proposed opt-in class. I grant the motions and
certify the class under Rule 23(b) (2).
Rule 23(a) requires that
named plaintiffs show that the class is so numerous
that joinder is impracticable, there are questions of
law or fact common to the class, the claims or defenses
of the named parties are typical of the class, and the
named parties will adequately protect the interests
of the class. The defendant concedes that the plaintiffs
meet these tests. Rule 23(b) (2) further requires the
plaintiffs to demonstrate that "the party opposing
the class has acted . . . on grounds applicable to the
class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief
... with respect to the class as a whole." As plaintiffs
primarily seek injunctive relief and the monetary relief
sought is merely incidental to the equitable relief,
a class action under Rule 23(b) (2) is correct. Jefferson
v. Ingersoll, 195 F.3d 894, 898 (7th Cir. 1999).
Chicago does not oppose
the certification of the class, but the parties differ
about the exact phrasing used to describe the class.
Plaintiffs request that the class consist of:
All persons, male or
female, in the present or former employ of the City
of Chicago, who have been or will be forced to retire
as a result of the City's passage and implementation
of the mandatory Retirement Ordinance, Chicago Municipal
Code 2-152-140.
Chicago suggests two changes.
First, it suggests that the phrase "forced to retire"
be replaced with the phrase "involuntarily retired."
Plaintiffs have no objection to this change, and neither
do I. However, plaintiffs do object to Chicago's second
alteration, which would restrict the class to those
forced to retire "at age 63." I agree with
plaintiffs that adding this phrase would inappropriately
exclude from the class potential plaintiffs who retired
from their jobs shortly before their 63rd birthdays
in anticipation of being obliged to leave. Thus, the
class of plaintiffs in this lawsuit is defined as:
All persons, male or
female, in the present or former employ of the City
of Chicago, who have been or will be involuntary retired
as a result of the City's passage and implementation
of the mandatory Retirement Ordinance, Chicago Municipal
Code 2-152-140.
The motion for class certification
is GRANTED. The motion
for initial notice of the opt-in class so certified
is likewise GRANTED.
|
