Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee

Jordan filed an employment discrimination class action against the County of Los Angeles, alleging that the County’s failure to hire persons because of their arrest records, juvenile records, and marijuana conviction records violates Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . Jordan’s motions for class certification, partial summary judgment, and leave to amend his complaint were denied. After judgment was entered on Jordan’s individual claims, he appealed each of these orders. We reverse the order denying class certification, affirm the order denying Jordan leave to amend his complaint, and decline to review the order denying Jordan’s motion for partial summary judgment. The cause is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.

I.

In June 1976, appellant Charles L. Jordan (Jordan), a black male, filed an action against the County of Los Angeles (County), alleging that it had violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by withholding him from appointment to the position of custodian in September 1973 based upon his juvenile record. Jordan pled a class action, claiming that…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

This is an appeal from a denial of class certification. The majority holds that the class should be certified despite the fact that the party seeking to represent the class has voluntarily settled all of his individual claims against the defendant.

I agree with the majority that, on the basis of the record presented to the district court at the time of its class certification ruling, the putative representative’s claim was typical of the claims of the class and that the class was sufficiently numerous to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. I further agree with the statement by the majority in footnote 13 that any further proceedings should be conditioned upon active participation by counsel for plaintiff which the district court deems adequate.

I do not agree with the majority, however, that the appellant seeking to represent the class in this matter retains any personal stake after he has compromised all of his individual claims. The only person now before the court with anything tangible to gain from the litigation is the appellant’s lawyer; I am not alone in finding that situation distasteful. See, e.g., United States Parole Comm’n…

669 F.2d 1311 28 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. 518 , 28 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 32,525 Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 79-3112. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 19, 1980. Decided Feb. 24, 1982. Walter Cochran-Bond, Taylor, Roth & Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., argued, for plaintiff-appellant; A. Thomas Hunt, Los Angeles, Cal., on brief. Alan Terakawa, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before TANG, SCHROEDER and NELSON, Circuit Judges. TANG, Circuit Judge: 1 Jordan filed an employment discrimination class action against the County of Los Angeles, alleging that the County's failure to hire persons because of their arrest records, juvenile records, and marijuana conviction records violates Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . Jordan's motions for class certification, partial summary judgment, and leave to amend his complaint were denied. After judgment was entered on Jordan's individual claims, he appealed each of these orders. We reverse the order denying class certification, affirm the…