DeGier

DeGier v. McDonald's Corp.

Good Law
19 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1345·76 F.R.D. 125·1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14496
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaAugust 12, 1977No. C-76-1525 SCCalifornia954 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Conti, J.

ORDER

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion filed pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1), F.R.C.P., to certify this action as a class action.

Based on the papers submitted, the court is without a proper factual foundation to definitively conclude that all the requirements of Rule 23 have been met. Having so found, however, the court will conditionally certify this action as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3). The class will conditionally consist of all female persons who have been employed, are presently employed, or might be employed by defendant McDonald’s Corporation at any of its facilities located in the San Francisco Region of McDonald’s Corporation since December 20, 1974, who have been or will be excluded from or denied jobs in management.

Furthermore, pursuant to Rule 23(d)(2), the court orders plaintiff to give notice at her own expense to everyone in the class. The main purpose of this notice is to give all class members the opportunity to signify whether they consider their representation in the instant suit fair and adequate. In the instant case, the adequacy of plaintiff’s counsel has been brought into question. Notice is appropriate under…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.