In the Wal Mart v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court decided that the class-action lawsuit filed against Wal Mart by female employees did not meet the requirements of commonality needed to proceed as a class action. The court ruled that the class of women suing Wal Mart did not have enough common factors or experiences to be considered a class for the purposes of a class action lawsuit. The concept of commonality in a class-action lawsuit refers to the shared questions of law or fact among the class members that are central to the validity of their claims. In this case, the Supreme Court found that the experiences of the female employees at Wal Mart were too diverse and individualized to establish a common question of fact or law that would bind all the class members together in a single lawsuit. The Supreme Court justified its decision by emphasizing that for a class to be certified in a class-action lawsuit, there must be a common question of law or fact that is central to all the class members’ claims. In the Wal Mart case, the court concluded that the female employees’ experiences and claims were too varied and did not share a common thread that would make a class-action lawsuit appropriate.

1. 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). 

“It is true that not all women employed at Wal-Mart since 1998 faced the same degree of discrimination”(1). This statement in the article, “Sex Class Action” by Dayana Tortorici, explains perfectly what happened in the Wal-Mart case. The court decided that because “the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once” (Tortorici 1). Commonality could not be presented in this case due to the 5-4 decision ratio that was delivered by Antonio Scalia, mentioned in the article. “Scalia argued that to claim ‘commonality’ a class must not only share a common problem, but also a common solution to that problem—one that would compensate all members equally in a single stroke” (Tortorici 1). 

In the Wal-Mart case the supreme court decided that because the 1.5 million females were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager their cases cant be litigated. They justified their decision by arguing that Dukes failed to meet rule 23 which is the question of law or fact common to the class. The class must share a common problem.

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? 

In a 5-4 decision, The Supreme Court dismissed the case in Walmart’s favor. They justified their decision by saying that they could not base their decision because not all of the 1.5 million female Walmart employees were denied the opportunities that their male’s coworkers had. The members of the court used the word “commonality” to base their decision. Commonality means to share the same interests. In this case, the Supreme Court alleged that not all the female co workers suffered the same discrimination as Mrs. Duke. That just made me very upset because there is no way that 1.5 million of employees were going to report the same racist act against them. At the end of the day, there were employees from all over the nation who didn’t have the same manager. To me, it’s obvious that they could; have the same gender discrimination treatment as Mrs. Dukes. However, I believe that this is not a valid argument from the Supreme Court to fail this specific case. Or at least, that is my opinion. 

1. 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.

1. 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).

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court ruled against allowing the class-action lawsuit to proceed. The Court’s decision hinged on the concept of “commonality,” which refers to whether the claims of the plaintiffs shared common legal or factual issues that could be resolved collectively. The Court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient commonality among their claims to justify a class-action lawsuit. Essentially, the Court argued that the alleged gender discrimination was not the result of a company-wide policy or practice, but rather the actions of individual managers. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the claims lacked the necessary commonality required for class certification. This decision effectively made it more difficult for employees to pursue class-action lawsuits against large corporations for systemic discrimination, as each individual would need to prove their case separately rather than as part of a collective group.

In the Walmart case, the Supreme court decided against the class action lawsuit, in favor of Walmart. The decision was justified due to a lack of “commonality” between female employees. Meaning, there was not enough of a correlation and common ground of discrimination. Though they did experience some sort of discrimination, it was not all the same which was enough for the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. 

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. 

In the Walmart case the Supreme court dismissed the case. The believed that Walmart should win because they said that all the women who were employed by Walmart did not all receive the same treatment. they used the term “Commonality” which means people do not have the same things in common. In order for them to make the case they needed for the women to show the commonality to show that this is happening to all of us because without that they court can not determine the unfairness that they are saying is happening.