The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the plaintiffs, deciding 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.