Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
44. Is the court likely to dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit?
The employees sought damages in the amount of $100,000 to remedy the harms they believed they had suffered. The employer moved to join additional parties, arguing that the American-born employees of the same ethnicity should be joined to the case because their interests will be impaired if they are left out. Some of the American-born employees the employer wishes to join the case are from State B. The employer then moved to dismiss the action, arguing that if the American-born employees are not added, the foreign-born employees' lawsuit must be dismissed.
A group of foreign-born employees, all of whom are from the same country and of the same ethnicity, and now living in State A, brought suit against their corporate employer, from State B, in federal court. The employees alleged that the employer discriminated against them on the basis of their national origin and had denied them promotions and pay raises at the company. Jurisdiction is based on diversity.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
The FRCP permits two kinds of joinder: Rule 20 permissive joinder and Rule 19 compulsory joinder. FRCP 20 allows plaintiffs to join together in an action if: (i) their claims arise from a single transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences; and (ii) there is a question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs which will arise in the action.
Compulsory joinder applies to «required» parties (formerly called «necessary» parties). FRCP 19(a) lays out the steps for determining whether a party is required and therefore falls under compulsory joinder.
FRCP 19 states that joinder is required for any person (i.e., they are deemed a «required party») who either:
(i) is required for the court to be able to accord complete relief among the existing parties; OR
(ii) has such an important interest in the case such that NOT joining them will either:
cause them a practical impairment or impediment in protecting their interest; ORexpose an existing party to a substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent liability.If a party is deemed «required» or «necessary,» then joinder is «compulsory,» meaning the required party should be joined. However, the court must also ensure that joinder of the required party will not destroy its jurisdiction.
If the required party cannot be joined for any reason, such as because their joinder will destroy jurisdiction, the court must make a choice: whether «in equity and good conscience,» the case should proceed without the required party, OR, if the absent required party should be deemed «INDISPENSABLE,» meaning the court dismisses the case entirely.
To determine whether the required (absent) party is INDISPENSABLE, warranting dismissal the court examines the following factors:
the extent of any prejudice to the absent party or existing parties following a judgment;whether such prejudice may be reduced or abated by provisions in the judgment, relief offered, or other avenues;whether a judgment issued without the absent party will be adequate; ANDif the case is dismissed for nonjoinder, whether the plaintiff will have an adequate alternative remedy.B is correct. The State B American-born employees have interests that might very well be impaired if they are not joined as parties—although American-born, the employer is arguing that their claims should be litigated with the foreign-born employees' claims. However, the American-born employees, although arguable necessary parties, cannot be added to the suit without destroying diversity jurisdiction.
The question then becomes whether they are indispensable, not just required. If the American-born employees are not added to the suit so that it may proceed, the American-born employees may still bring an action on behalf of their group separately. As such, excluding the State B American-born employees would only impair, not prejudice the American-born employees, then they are not considered indispensable parties and the court need not dismiss the foreign-born employees' suit.
A is incorrect. This is a misstatement of the law. If a party that cannot be joined is required, meaning that their interests will be impaired should they be excluded, then a court may still permit the original claim to go forward despite the impairment to the party that could not be joined.
However, if the party that cannot be joined is indispensable, meaning that their interests would be prejudiced should they be excluded, then the court must dismiss the original claim should these parties not be joined.
C is incorrect. This choice is indicating the standard for a «required» party, not an indispensable party. When an absent party's interest in a suit will be impaired, not prejudiced if they are not joined, that party is only a required party, not an indispensable party.
Indispensable parties to a suit are those parties whose interests will be prejudiced if they are not joined to a suit. Here, the State B American-born employees are required, but are not indispensable parties to the foreign-born employees' claim, as explained above.
D is incorrect. As explained above, when an absent party is required but not indispensable, the case is not subject to mandatory dismissal. If, however, the court determines that an absent party is, in fact, indispensable, it means that «in equity and good conscience» the case cannot go on. This may be due to prejudice or some other factor in the analysis.