Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and for Bifurcation in Gratz

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs submit this memorandum of law in support of their motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, to certify this lawsuit as a class acton, and in opposition to defendants' motion for an order denying certification. The proposed class is defined as all individuals who:

(1) applied for and were not granted admission to the College of Literature, Science & the Arts ("LSA") or who in the future intend to apply for admission into the LSA for all academic years from 1995 forward; and
(2) are members of those racial or ethnic groups, including Caucasian, that Defendants treat less favorably in considering their applications for admission to the Law School.

Plaintiffs seek to maintain this class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B) & 23(b)(2) on the issues of whether defendants engaged in unlawful discrminatino; whether they should be enjoined from engaging in such discrimination in the future; and on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. In the alternative, plaintiffs move for an order certifying a class pursuant to Rules 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) on the issue of whether the defendants engaged in unlawful discrimination and on plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs also move that, upon class certification, the Court order bifurcation of trials of the liability and damages issues.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs commenced this action against defendants on grounds that defendants' polciies and practices in granting admission to the college of literature, Science & the Arts ("LSA") are based on racial classifications that violate the United States Constitution and several federal civil rights statutes. In filing the Complaint, plaintiffs pled the elements of a class acton under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In considering a motion for class certification, the court does not reach the merits. Instead, the determination whether class certification is appropriate should be made on the pleadings in light of the procedural requirements of Rule 23. See, e.g., Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 178 (1974); see also, Weathers v. Peters Realty Corp., 499 F.2d 1197, 1201 (6th Cir. 1974); Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Smith, 172 F.R.D. 236, 241 (E.D. Mich. 1997) ("[i]n determining whether to certify a class, inquiry into the merits of plaintiff's claims to inappropriate"); Rodriguez v. Berrybrook Farms, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 1009, 1017 (W.D. Mich. 1987). The facts alleged in this case are plainly sufficient to support grant of plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiff Jennifer Gratz is a white resident of the state of Michigan who in1995 applied for admission into the fall1 1995 freshman class of the LSA. Complaint at ¶4. After first being placed on a "wait-list," plaintiff was denied admission by defendants' letter dated June 25, 1997. Id. as a result of the denial of her admission into the LSA, plaintiff Gratz has attended the University of Michigan at Dearborn instead. Id.

Plaintiff Patrick Hamacher is a white resident of the state of Michigan who applied in 1996 for admission into the fall 1997 freshman class of the LSA. Complaint at ¶ 5. After first being placed on the "wait-list," plaintiff Hamacher was denied admission sometime in the spring of 1997. Id. as a result of his denial of admission into the LSA, he has attended Michigan State University instead. Id. He still desires to attend the LSA and would transfer to the LSA if offered an opportunity. Id. He intends to apply to transfer if defendants' discriminatory admissions system is eliminated. Id; Patrick Hamacher Deposition testimony, September 11, 1998, transcript at pp. 125-126 (Ex.A.).

The LSA's application for admission requests that applicants disclose their race. Defendants take an applicant's race into account when making admissions decisions. Complaint at ¶¶18-19; Defendants' answer at ¶18. Certain racial groups receive more favorable treatment than others in the admissions process. Complain at ¶20. The result is that students from the favored racial groups have a significantly greater chance of admission than students with similar credentials from disfavored racial groups. Id. Plaintiffs Gratz and Hamacher, as white applicants, were not members of one of the favored racial groups. Id. at ¶21; see also Answer at ¶21 (Defendants admit that plaintiffs are not members of an underrepresented minority group and that their race was not a factor that enhanced the University of Michigan's consideration of their application.")

As a result of defendants' use of racially discriminatory admissions procedures and practices, plaintiffs were denied admission to the LSA. Complaint at ¶25. The unlawful grounds on which plaintiffs were denied admission have caused them to sustain various damages, including humiliation, emotional distress, pain and suffering and economic damages. Id. Plaintiffs therefore seek various types of relief, including a declaration that defendants have violated plaintiffs' constitutional right to equal protection of the laws; an order (as to Plaintiff Hamacher and the class) enjoying defendants from continuing to discriminate on the basis of race in their admissions practices and procedures; and an award of compensatory and punitive damages and reasonable attorneys' fees. Complaint at pp. 8-9.

Memorandum Argument,
section I.A. (next section)--
Class Satisfies Requirements of Rule
(next section)

Memorandum
Table of Contents

Gratz case menu