These questions are based on the “Sex Class Action” article:
- 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).
Melissa Boatswain
POL-100
In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court ruled against certifying the class-action lawsuit brought by over one million women who alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The Court’s decision hinged on the legal requirement of “commonality” under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that all members of a class-action lawsuit must share common questions of law or fact that can be resolved collectively.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, argued that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient commonality among their claims. Specifically, the Court emphasized that Wal-Mart’s pay and promotion decisions were made by individual store managers, not guided by a centralized discriminatory policy. As a result, the alleged discrimination was too varied and individualized to be addressed as a single legal issue. The plaintiffs’ attempt to show a “corporate culture” of gender bias was deemed too vague and insufficient to meet the standard for commonality.
The Court also noted that resolving the claims would require examining each woman’s circumstances individually, making it impossible to resolve the case in one unified proceeding. This procedural focus led the Court to deny class certification, effectively ending the lawsuit in its original form.
This decision highlights the challenges in holding large corporations accountable for systemic issues like gender discrimination, as the requirement for commonality can be a significant legal hurdle. While the plaintiffs raised important questions about workplace inequality, the Court’s focus on procedural rules limited their ability to pursue justice as a collective group.
Tatiana Reyes
POL-100
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the class-action lawsuit filed by Betty Dukes and other women did not meet the requirements necessary to proceed as a class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court determined that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief and back pay was procedurally flawed. It held that these types of relief could not be pursued together under the specific “b(2)” classification they used. The Court also found that the class lacked the “commonality” required for certification.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that for a class to meet the commonality requirement, its members must share common questions of law or fact and a common solution that could resolve the claims of all class members in a single stroke. He contended that because Wal-Mart’s alleged discriminatory practices stemmed from decentralized managerial discretion rather than a unified corporate policy, the women’s experiences varied too widely. Without a unifying “glue” to connect the claims—such as a central discriminatory policy—there was no single answer to the crucial question, “Why was I disfavored?” In the Court’s view, this lack of a consistent thread rendered the class-action approach inappropriate.
The dissent, led by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, criticized the majority’s interpretation of commonality, arguing that Wal-Mart’s culture of discretionary practices had a demonstrable pattern of gender bias across the company. She emphasized that even decentralized practices can lead to systemic discrimination and that such patterns should suffice to establish commonality under Rule 23. However, the majority’s narrow definition of commonality prevailed.