In the Wal-Mart Stores Vs. Dukes case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart. They concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient commonality. While the plaintiffs did all share one problem which was sex discrimination, The majority opinion emphasized that the plantiffs’ claims were too individualized and specific and that they did not all experience the discrimination in the same way or to the same degree, making it difficult to have just one common solution for all involved, according to the Supreme Court. As a result the court ruled that commonality required for class action was not displayed.
The plantiffs also attempted to argue that the gender discrimination was common practice exhibited across all Wal-Mart locations. They backed this up with statistics and evidence that display the disparities between women and men across all levels and all Wal-Mart stores, however the court argued that there was not a company wide policy in place that stated that women should not advance or have equal pay and opportunities.
Former Supreme Court Justice Scalia, reinforced this notion by sticking to what was written in Wal-Marts policy, stating “Wal-Marts announced policy forbids sex discrimination” This one line doesn’t negate the fact that women have been experiencing sexism and discrimination in the workplace and in life in general due to the deeply rooted patriarchal foundation of the country.
The decision made by the Supreme Court emphasizes the challenges faced when going against the large corporations and highlighted the challenges that gender discrimination claims face when trying to address broad systemic issues in the workplace, especially in the context of large corporations.
