cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623, 117 S.Ct. 2231, 138 L.Ed.2d 689 (1997). This inquiry “trains on the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy ...” Id. The predominance requirement is similar to the typicality of claims and defenses requirement of Rule 23(a)(3), but is “far more demanding” than Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Id. at 623-24, 117 S.Ct. 2231. Here, the Court has already determined that plaintiffs proposed class fails the commonality and typicality requirements. Plaintiff admits that the amount of damages will vary significantly among putative class members, as evidenced by her suggestion that the Court bifurcate the liability from the damage 2008) (<HOLDING>); Farrell v. Butler Univ., 421 F.3d 609, 616
holding that a plaintiff in a discrimination case need not demonstrate that she was replaced by a person outside her protected class in order to carry her burden of establishing a prima facie case holding that plaintiff could not establish prima facie case of discrimination where plaintiff failed to meet minimum qualifications for job holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence holding that in title vii disparate treatment case in order for a plaintiff to establish a prima facie case the plaintiff must proffer evidence among other things that she performed her job according to her employers legitimate expectations if the plaintiff establishes the prima facie case the presumption shifts the burden to the employer to produce a legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for its actions holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1