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 term means, as it is key to the court’s decision). 

In the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the Supreme Court ruled that a group of about 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination. The Supreme Court justified its decision based on the Court’s interpretation of the requirements stated under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which specifies what kind of relief classes can seek. Basically, the women filed as the wrong class. They filed as a “b(2)” class seeking injunctive or declaratory relief, which seeks an official change of systematic issues like sexual discrimination. However, the women also requested to get backpay or monetary relief, so they should have filed as a “b(3)” class instead. So, according to the Supreme Court, misclassification caused the plaintiffs not to meet the rules to proceed.