Grosz

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiffs, a proposed class of Boeing employees from Boeing’s southern California facilities, appeal the denial of class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3). We affirm.

I. Proposed Order.

We reject plaintiffs’ argument that the district court erred in adopting Boe *962 ing’s proposed order without alteration. The district court held an extensive hearing on the proposed class certification and issued a minute order setting forth its decision. The court ordered, among other things, the prevailing party to prepare the proposed order based on the minute order. The district court did not abdicate its responsibility to analyze class certification as plaintiffs claim; thus its order should not be subject to “heightened” review, and, in any event, was proper.

II. Certification.

The district court did not abuse its broad discretion in determining that under Rule 23(a) the requirements of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation are not met. See Fed. R. of Civ. Pro. 23(a)(2), (3), (4). While excessive subjectivity can be a discriminatory practice, see Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 990-91 , 108…