D.C. Circuit Denies 23(f) Interlocutory Appeal

Plaintiffs filed this Title VII case against Naval Sea Systems Command, alleging sex and race discrimination.  They later moved to certify the matter as a class action, but the EEOC dismissed the complaint as lacking jurisdiction.  The employer then processed the complaints individually, and dismissed each one.  Plantiffs failed to sue within the required 90 days of the EEOC's dismissal, but did file with 90 days of the employer's individual dismissals.  Shortly thereafter, they moved to certify the class under Rule 23.  The district court dismissed the action because the plaintiffs had failed to file within the Title VII 90 day deadline.  Plaintiffs then filed this 23(f) motion for an interlocutory appeal on the certification issue, arguing that the district court's denial of certification was clearly erroneous.  The D.C. Circuit dismissed the petition, finding that plaintiff's arguments related entirely to Title VII timing requirements, and were thus beyond the scope of a 23(f) appeal, which is limited to arguments dealing with Rule 23 certification requirements.  The court emphasized the narrowness of its holding, pointing out that plaintiffs' individual claims could go forward, and that they could appeal the Title VII issues after final judgment.  In re James, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8405 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 7, 2006). - L.C.