On August 19, 1999, two employees filed a lawsuit against their employer, Honda of American Manufacturing Inc., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.,, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4112.99, and Ohio common law. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, alleged that the defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination, resulting in disparate impact and disparate treatment, and asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the employer discriminated against African Americans by denying them favorable positions, skilled positions, transfers and promotions, through the operation of a "buddy system," and through the use of both objective and subjective employment criteria. They asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, promotion to desired positions, the implementation of sensitivity, training, an employee grievance system and an equal employment opportunity program under the supervision of a court-appointed expert for two years, compensatory damages, and back pay. Bacon v. Honda of America Mfg. Inc., 205 F.R.D. 466, (S.D. Ohio 2001).
On September 29, 2000, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. They sought a class consisting of all current and former African-American employees who had been employed by the defendant since 1977. On March 7, 2001, the court denied class certification, holding that commonality had not been established. Bacon v. Honda of America Mfg. Inc., 205 F.R.D. 466, (S.D. Ohio 2001). The plaintiffs appealed this ruling, yet on May 27, 2004 the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Judge Boggs) affirmed the District Court's denial of class certification and granted summary judgment to Honda of America Manufacturing Inc.
Additionally, on January 26, 2001, the defendant moved for summary judgment against the named plaintiff and on February 16, 2001, the defendant moved for summary judgment against another plaintiff. On April 4, 2001, the court (Judge Graham) granted the motions for summary judgment.
On May 3, 2001, the plaintiffs appealed the judgment. Summarily, on May 16, 2001, the court (Judge Graham) issued an order directing a final judgment in favor of the defendant.
On February 13, 2002, the defendant moved to strike the plaintiffs' class claims and on March 26, 2002, the court (Judge Graham) granted the motion. On December 18, 2002, the court (Judge Graham) granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.
On January 15, 2003, the plaintiffs issued an appeal notification. On March 26, 2005, the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs certiorari. On May 12, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals granted the stipulation and dismissed the appeal.
According to PACER documents, on February 14, 2005, the court (Judge Graham) held that an award of costs, $51,770.48, against the plaintiffs and in favor of the defendant was appropriate, denying the plaintiffs' motion to deny or reduce costs.Emily Kuznick - 05/01/2008