as a class action. Id. at 676. Defendants do not challenge the qualifications of plaintiffs’ attorneys. However, defendants do assert that the named plaintiffs have interests that are antagonistic to those of the proposed class members because some named plaintiffs have received promotions under Article 11, while some potential class members have not. That fact, however, does not lead to the conclusion that the named plaintiffs have interests antagonistic to those of the potential class members. At most, defendants have highlighted the inevitable factual variations among named plaintiffs and potential class members. Such variations are insufficient to undermine the adequacy of the named plaintiffs’ representation. See Meiresonne v. Marriott Corp., 124 F.R.D. 619, 625 (N.D.Ill.1989) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the court finds that plaintiffs have
holding that supervisor was adequate representative because her interests were not antagonistic to those of other class members where her involvement in implementing allegedly discriminatory salary system was minimal and she had no salarysetting authority with regard to any class members holding that entry of settlement decree without notice to putative class members violated the due process rights of the class members holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that competition among class members is insufficient to demonstrate antagonistic interests holding that a class plaintiff who seeks to assert statutory rights to protect a class of which he is a member is not asserting rights antagonistic to any members of that class