A Latino accountant brings a federal class action on behalf of 500 Latino employees and applicants alleging discriminatory hiring and promotion practices. The accountant seeks backpay, money damages, and injunctive relief. The court is asked to certify the class. Is class certification likely to be granted?

• A. Yes, because the class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable.
• B. Yes, because there are questions of law or fact common to the class members.
• C. No, because the class is so numerous that joinder would be impracticable.
• D. No, because potential conflicts of interest among class members could undermine adequate representation.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is the adequacy requirement under Rule 23(a). For a class to be certified, the named representative must fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members. Even when there are many potential class members (numerosity) and common questions about liability (commonality), those alone aren’t enough. If there are meaningful conflicts of interest among the class members—meaning some members’ interests diverge in a way that could prevent the representative from vigorously pursuing or negotiating for the entire group—the court can’t certify the class.

Here, the class includes both current employees and applicants, all Latino, seeking backpay, damages, and injunctive relief. Some members’ remedies and priorities may differ: those who were hired and stayed on might seek damages and backpay tied to discriminatory hiring and promotion policies, while applicants who were not hired may have different or limited remedies. These divergent interests create a real risk that the named plaintiff and class counsel can’t adequately represent everyone’s interests in one action. Because adequacy is not met, class certification is unlikely, even though numerosity and common questions might otherwise exist.