Case: Yapp v. Union Pacific RR. Co.

4:02-cv-00615 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri

Filed Date: April 29, 2002

Closed Date: 2007

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On April 29, 2002, six employees filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against their employer, the Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR"). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged racial discrimination and asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged systemic racial discri…

On April 29, 2002, six employees filed a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Missouri Human Rights Act in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against their employer, the Union Pacific Railroad Company ("UPRR"). The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged racial discrimination and asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged systemic racial discrimination in UPRR's employee selection, training and compensation policies, practices and procedures, including claims of disparate impact and disparate treatment.

According to the PACER docket, on August 29, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and on November 15, 2004, a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class certification began. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of all African-Americans, who, from July 18, 2000 to the present, were adversely impacted by one or more aspects of the UPRR's policies, practices and procedures related to selections for non-agreement job vacancies. On August 5, 2005, the court (Judge Stephen Limbaugh) denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, holding that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation requirements. Yapp v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 229 F.R.D. 608 (E.D. Mo. 2005).

According to the PACER docket, on July 24, 2006, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. On September 26, 2006, the court (Judge Limbaugh) referred the case to alternative dispute resolution in the form of mediation, yet the parties failed to reach a settlement. On March 29, 2007, the court (Judge Limbaugh) granted in part the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing majority of the plaintiffs' claims. On November 9, 2007, the plaintiffs issued a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, and on November 13, 2007, the court (Judge Limbaugh) dismissed the case with prejudice. No further details regarding the settlement are available.

Summary Authors

Emily Kuznick (4/14/2008)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5478666/parties/yapp-v-union-pacific-rr-co/


Judge(s)

Limbaugh, Stephen Nathaniel (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Calamusa, Rocco Jr. (Alabama)

Childs, Robert F. Jr. (Alabama)

Johnson, Herman N. Jr. (Alabama)

Mattison, Deborah A. (Alabama)

Ray, Jon A. (Missouri)

Wiggins, Robert L Jr. (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Burke, Michael P. (Missouri)

Donnelly, Dennis C (Missouri)

Herbert, Douglas C. (District of Columbia)

Judge(s)

Limbaugh, Stephen Nathaniel (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Calamusa, Rocco Jr. (Alabama)

Childs, Robert F. Jr. (Alabama)

Johnson, Herman N. Jr. (Alabama)

Mattison, Deborah A. (Alabama)

Ray, Jon A. (Missouri)

Wiggins, Robert L Jr. (Alabama)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Burke, Michael P. (Missouri)

Donnelly, Dennis C (Missouri)

Herbert, Douglas C. (District of Columbia)

Martin, Lisa Demet (Missouri)

Mooney, Timothy C. Jr. (Missouri)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Sedey, Mary Anne (Missouri)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

4:02-cv-00615

Docket

Yapp v. Union Pacific

March 28, 2008

March 28, 2008

Docket
33

4:02-cv-00615

Protective Order

Yapp v. Union Pacific Railroad Company

Dec. 27, 2002

Dec. 27, 2002

Order/Opinion
124

4:02-cv-00615

Class Certification Denied

Yapp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

229 F.R.D. 608, 2005 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 23061

Aug. 5, 2005

Aug. 5, 2005

Order/Opinion
172

4:02-cv-00615

Order Referring Case to Alternative Dispute Resolution

Yapp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

Sept. 26, 2006

Sept. 26, 2006

Order/Opinion
179

4:02-cv-00615

Order

Yapp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.

March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5478666/yapp-v-union-pacific-rr-co/

Last updated July 16, 2022, 3:19 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
124

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Pltfs' Motion for Class Certification 41 be and hereby is DENIED; Signed by Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh on 8/5/05 (CMA)

Aug. 5, 2005

Aug. 5, 2005

RECAP
127

ORDER re 125 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that "Plaintiffs' motion to Alter, or Amend, Memorandum and Order Regarding Class Certification" is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh on 10/7/05. (ARL)

Oct. 7, 2005

Oct. 7, 2005

RECAP
140

ORDER - IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs may select which of the cases are to be tried first and the remaining two cases in the order of their preference. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the three cases to be tried, if plaintiffs prefer, can be tried in sequence in that one may be tried first and when that case is submitted to a jury the second case can be tried and when that case is submitted to a jury, the third case can be tried so that the casescan be tried sequentially if desired. Otherwise , the cases can be tried on different dates. For the selection process, the Court offers the following dates as available: August 7, 2006; September 18, 2006; October 30, 2006.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall notify the Court if a Rule 16 Scheduling Order would be preferred. If so, the Court should be notified and a scheduling order will be issued; otherwise the Court suggests that the parties agree on one of the suggested trial dates and the methodology for conducting the trial, or if preferred, a telephone conference can be held between the Court and counsel for the purpose of resolving the trial date and any scheduling issues that need to be considered. In this connection, defendant has moved to amend the case management order but it would appear that the parties response to this order would be more appropriate before ruling on the motion to amend.re 134 , 137 . Signed by Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh on 4/19/06. (ARL)

April 19, 2006

April 19, 2006

RECAP
148

ORDER 142 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the foregoing reasons, the motion of plaintiffs for leave to file a second amended complaint is DENIED. Signed by Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh on 6/19/06. (ARL)

June 19, 2006

June 19, 2006

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Key Dates

Filing Date: April 29, 2002

Closing Date: 2007

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

African-Americans, who, from July 18, 2000, to the present were adversely impacted by one or more aspects of the UPRR’s policies, practices and procedures related to selections for non-agreement job vacancies

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Union Pacific Railroad Co., Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Transportation

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Confession of Judgment

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Discrimination-area:

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Race:

Black

Affected Gender:

Female

Male