Co. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 379 n. 5, 116 S.Ct. 873, 134 L.Ed.2d 6 (1996) (Stevens, J.)(characterizing adequacy of representation as a constitutional requirement); Lile v. Simmons, 143 F.Supp.2d 1267, 1277 (D.Kan.2001) (Vratil, J.)(“Due process requires that the Court ‘stringently’ apply the competent representation requirement because class members are bound by the judgment (unless they opt out), even though they may not actually be aware of the proceedings.”). “The requirement of fair and adequate representation is perhaps the most important of the criteria for class certification set forth in Rule 23(a).... ” Miller ex rel. S.M. v. Bd. of Educ., 455 F.Supp.2d 1286, 1294 (D.N.M.2006) (Armijo, J.). See Cobb v. Avon Prods., Inc., 71 F.R.D. 652, 6 . 574, 579 (W.D.Va.1999) (Michael, J.)(<HOLDING>). On the other hand, “only a conflict that goes
holding that evidence established a municipal custom within the police department of a code of silence regarding sexual harassment of female officers and of retaliation against female officers who complained about same holding male athletic coach could bring suit under prohibition on sex discrimination in title ix of the education amendments of 1972 because coach alleged that he suffered adverse consequences for protesting discriminatory treatment of female athletes holding that third persons do not have standing to assert title ix claims on behalf of female athletes holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship holding that a class of all high school female athletes could not be certified  even if the alleged conduct of the defendant school system was discriminatory  when some female athletes did not share the same goals or interests as the named female plaintiffs because those unnamed female athletes were satisfied with andor benefitted from the alleged discriminatory treatment