In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme court decided that female employees couldn’t sue their employer for pay discrimination as a nationwide class. The court was able to justify the decision because the lawsuit was claimed to be violating Title 7, which is the law that prevents discrimination based off of sex. This relates to class-law action because of the women wanting to sue away-Mart as a group because everyone had similar claims with them.

The supreme Court had a 5-4 split meaning they could not go on with the case. The reason they could not continue because of the commonality rule. The court felt as if the women did not come up with enough evidence to prove that Walmart was discriminating against all women across the Walmart’s. Justice Antonin Scalia made majority of the opinion saying that Dukes did not show commonality because not all women who were apart of the case had the same job, boss, position, or same raise. Since the women did not have common claims Dukes could not continue with the lawsuit.

in the court case Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the supreme court ultimately decided in Walmarts favor in a close call 5-4 decision this was based on “Dukes also failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement—that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class.” as said in the “Sex Class Action issue 14” article. this justify their decision by this very important paragraph 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. 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.” to sum it up it would be impossible to individually process each of the 1.5 million and go through each claim

Discussion Board 12.1

The Supreme Court not only did not certify the class-action for the plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, but it also denied the class-action status to them on account of the failure “to prove the existence of commonality,” which is a requirement under Rule 23 for class certification. The Court concluded that the discrimination was not justified since the alleged gender discrimination was not due to a corporate policy that was consistent but due to the discretion at individual store levels. As a result, the Court came to the consideration that the female employees did not have enough evidence to prove that they had a shared experience Hence, certifying the class was rejected, underlining the Court’s allegiance to hard-to-display shouldering standards and vindication of the class action procedure.

The court’s rulings thus re-emphasized the importance of “commonality” in the context of class-action lawsuits. The Court, by its examination of the alleged discrimination in the context of the general policy or practice of the company, propounded a rigorous standard for class certification. In this example, the omission of any kind of policy or practice standard that could serve as a supporting basis for the plaintiffs ended up undermining their claims. The Court’s decision was a reflection of its resolve to make sure that class actions come from individuals who have a common legal interest, to achieve the three objectives of fairness, efficiency, and convenience.

In the end, the Wal-Mart trial demonstrates how the Court stands by its principle of carefully examining class certification cases while emphasizing the point that all class members have to share the same bases for their claims. The Court tried to accomplish this by imposing an obligation that the plaintiff must present a patent connection between the discriminatory acts and the company-wide policies or practices. The purpose of the mechanism was to preserve the integrity of the class-action mechanism. On the other hand, such a glimpse of the Court’s determination in upholding the stringent requirements sets the stage for the exercise of its primary function that is, to enforce fairness to both parties.

The case of Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. alleges gender discrimination in pay raises and promotions. The lawsuit could not be processed as a single class action. Antonin Scalia, Former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, delivered the split 5-4 decision, ruling that the plaintiffs did not have enough commonality to be considered a class under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. According to Antonin Scalia, to claim commonality, a class must share a common problem and a common solution to said problem. 

1.In the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The plaintiffs, a group of female workers who said they were the targets of pay and promotion discrimination, could not meet the necessary requirements for commonality in a class-action lawsuit. The concept of commonality, which calls for students in the class to have similar factual or legal challenges, was essential. The Court came to the conclusion that Wal-Mart’s decentralized practices, which allow for each store discretion, led to an overly varied range of member experiences, undermining the commonality required for a cohesive complaint. The decision underlined the necessity of commonality and strengthened the conditions for class action certification, particularly in situations where disagreements arose.

Introducing the case [Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,] involved 1.5 million women workers claiming discrimination in pay and promotions, indicating a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights act, 1964. Evidently, within the 41 regional stores it’s shown that the male employees were payed more than female employees. However, what’s highlighted are the requirements of commonality which is the key factor in class action lawsuits. To note, class action falls under Rule 23 which specifies what kind of relief classes are given. Those seeking injunctive or declaratory relief are to file class under “b [2]” which was what the women had done, including the demand for back pay. Due to incorrect filing, this paved the way for a court decision. The women were to file under “b [3]” claim as that can assist in the financial aspect hence doing so in “b [2]” will not grant women an equal amount of compensation. This did not meet the commonality requirements therefore denying promotion to the plaintiff and overruling the case.

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

With 5 votes against 4, the Supreme Court decided that the class could not proceed as it was, saying the plaintiffs did not have “enough commonality” to constitute a class. This meant that any women who decided to continue the process against Walmart would have to do so by filling individual claims or in smaller groups.

The Supreme Court used two factors to justify the decision. The first one was a problem in the classification: the women in Dukes filed the case as a “b(2)” class, a type of classification for cases that seek “injunctive relief” or, in other words, seeking that Walmart fixed its systematical sex discrimination issue. However, the women were also asking for monetary restitution, which would fall under a “b(3)” class. This misclassification compromised the women’s class status, but what was really questioned was a second factor, the “commonality” factor.

The Court ruled that the class failed to meet the commonality requirement: that a class needs to share a problem in common, but also a common solution. Basically, the Court decided that because they were such a big group (over 1.5 million females!), it would be less likely or nearly impossible that all the women suffered the same level of discrimination, were denied the same promotion, etc. The article in this module brings a very important perspective about this, saying the women live in a paradox: yes, we are the majority of population, too big of a group to be technically considered a minority, and yet we are oppressed by a patriarch system that will always find ways to favor man. The Supreme Court decision reflects exactly this idea.