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).
1. In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court ruled that approximately 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Wal-Mart. The critical issue was “commonality,” which requires questions of law or fact common to the class. The Court found that the plaintiffs did not meet this requirement because they failed to show that all Wal-Mart managers used their discretion over pay and promotions in a uniform, discriminatory manner. The claims were too diverse and individualized to meet the commonality requirement, as there was no significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general discrimination policy.
Yes, the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes highlights the importance of the commonality requirement in class-action lawsuits. The ruling underscored that, for a group to be certified as a class, there needs to be a common contention that is capable of resolving the claims of the entire class. In this case, the plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that there was a consistent, company-wide policy of discrimination that affected all members of the proposed class.
n the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011), the U.S. Supreme Court examined a class action lawsuit filed by a group of female employees against Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs claimed that the company’s discretionary pay and promotion policies led to gender discrimination against women, violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They aimed to represent approximately 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart across the country.
The Supreme Court’s decision primarily focused on whether the plaintiffs’ claims could proceed as a class action under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 23, which governs class certification. In a 5-4 ruling, the Court decided against the plaintiffs, concluding that they did not meet the requirements for class certification.