In the Wal-Mart case, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court decided not to move forward with a class action lawsuit that over one million female employees filed against Wal-Mart. The decision mainly focused on the requirement of “commonality,” a key element for class-action lawsuits under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This requirement means that the members of the lawsuit must have similar legal issues or situations that would warrant addressing their claims together. Justice Scalia, leading the majority opinion, argued that the plaintiffs failed to show that Wal-Mart had a company-wide policy of discrimination impacting all the class members. He noted that there wasn’t a consistent link or “glue” across the numerous employment decisions at various Wal-Mart stores. Without a clear, overarching policy of discrimination, the court felt that each claim would need individual examination to understand the specific details and context. The court reasoned that simply showing variations in pay and promotions across Wal-Mart didn’t sufficiently demonstrate common legal or factual questions. Since the plaintiffs couldn’t trace these issues to a uniform discriminatory policy affecting everyone, the differences in how individual stores operated meant that each complaint might need to be considered on its own. The majority stressed that for a class action to be approved, it must demonstrate that all plaintiffs suffered the same type of harm under the same corporate policy. Lacking this uniformity, the court suggested that individual lawsuits were more suitable for addressing these complaints. This ruling is significant as it points out the difficulties of proving widespread discrimination in large, decentralized companies where management practices can differ greatly. It set a precedent that for a class-action suit to be certified, there needs to be a clear and common thread in the discrimination claims across the entire class.