- What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).
The Supreme Court decided in the Wal-Mart case that 1.5 million women workers were not properly classified in order to sue for damages and did not meet the required “commonality” to count as a class. First, they argued that classes that seek injunctive relief count as a “b(2)” class, while classes seeking monetary relief should file as a “b(3)” class. Because of the nature of the case, the class was filed as a “b(2)” class, but the Court decided they needed to reclassify because of the demand for backpay. Additionally, and more damningly, the Supreme Court argued that the class did not meet the standards set for “commonality,” meaning that the 1.5 million women did not have enough in common for the case to be litigated. Antonin Scalia argued that commonality meant that a class needed not only a common problem, but a common solution that could be applied to all members. Because every one of the 1.5 million women were not identically affected and could not be identically compensated, the Supreme Court ruled that they could not file as a class against Wal-Mart. They did not fully confirm or deny that there was any sex discrimination, only that it was not the exact same experience for each of the women who worked at Wal-Mart between 1998 and 2011. So, even though there were 10 years worth of documentation, studies created, and documents gathered, the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the case for not having enough of their interpretation of “commonality,” in part due to the class being so large.
