Mosely v General Motors
497 F 2d 1330 [1974]
Author:- Sam Biers

Joinder : By Plaintiffs ( Permissive Joinder)

Relevant Facts: Pl Mosely an nine others joined in bringing this action individually and as class representatives alleging their rights under 42 U S C 2000 and 42 U S C 1981 were denied by GM, Local 25, United Automobile, and Aerospace Agriculture Implement of American by reason of their race. The Pls allege that the Dfs had discriminated against them on the basis of race in promotion, and in the terms and conditions of employment, by retaliating against employees of color who protested against the policies, by discharging them.

Legal Issue(s): Whether the Pls should be allowed to join each other and whether all counts should be allowed within one COA?

Court’s Holding: Join and if appropriate separate trials on particular issues.

Procedure: Pls had filed an EEOC complaint which found for Pls (unlawful employment practices); D Ct severed the first 10 cnts into ten separate COA and directed each Pl to bring a separate action separately filed. [There was no right to relief arising out of STO] “The only relationship was the Df.” Interlocutory appeal granted Ct of App.  Affirm in part Reverse in part.

Law or Rule(s): All persons may join in one action as Pls if they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative in respect of or arising out of the STO, AND if any question of law or fact common to all these persons will arise in the action.

Court Rationale: The purpose of Rule 20, supra, is to promote trial convenience and expedite the final determination of disputes, and prevent multiple lawsuits. Permissive Joinder  - is not applicable in all cases and is determined by both requirements under RULE 20.  To determine STO a case by case approach is generally pursued.  All “logically related’ entitling a person to institute a legal action against another are generally regarded as comprising a STO.   The Rule does not require all questions of law and fact raised by the dispute be in common.  Here, as in employment discrimination cases, cts found that the discriminating character of a DF’s conduct is basic to the class, and just b/c individual class members have suffered different effects does not defeat the commonality relationship btwn questions of law and fact requirement.   The right of relief depends on the ability to demonstrate that each Pls was wronged by racial policies on the part of the Dfs, if so the discriminatory character of the Df’s conduct is basic to each Pl’s recovery.

Plaintiff’s Argument: The Pl’s claims are common and logically related to STO involving Dfs.

Defendant’s Argument: The only purported ‘logically related’ question of law or fact by the Pls are the Dfs; there is no right to relief arising out of the STO.