The Supreme Court ruled in the Wal-Mart case that the women’s class action lawsuit could not proceed as a class action. ​ The Court unanimously ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which was not the classification under which the plaintiffs had filed. ​ The Court also ruled, in a split 5-4 decision, that the class represented in the case failed to meet the commonality requirement of Rule 23, which states that there must be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. ​ The majority argued that the class did not share a common problem and a common solution, as the alleged discrimination varied among the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees. ​The disagreed opinion argued that the evidence showed a common culture of sexism at Wal-Mart and that the class should be allowed to proceed. ​

The Supreme Court justified its decision in the Wal-Mart case by focusing on two key issues: the classification of the lawsuit and the requirement of commonality. ​First, the Court ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay, which would amount to millions or even billions of dollars, could only belong in a b(3) claim. ​ The plaintiffs had filed their lawsuit as a b(2) class action, seeking injunctive relief (asking Wal-Mart to change its policies or practices regarding alleged discrimination against women employees). ​ The Court determined that the inclusion of back pay in the lawsuit misclassified it, compromising the women’s class status and sending them back to square one.