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).

The Supreme Court made the decision in the Wal-Mart Case that there was not enough evidence to conduct a class. With this, Dukes had a stake in both legal and social matters that went beyond the women’s claims and Wal-Mart’s employment practices. The court had rules that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which would be consumer class actions. Unfortunately, this only caused the women’s class status to start back where they were. The Supreme Court also rules that the class represented, failed to meet Rules 23’s commonality requirement, that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. Due to this Supreme Court decision, 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.

1. 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)

The supreme Court did not want to rule it was a class action case only because every woman’s situation was different and they were not all under the same supervisor where they felt discriminated. Not all 1.5 million women were a belittled or insulted by the same supervisor, or rejected for the same position. The lawyers did try to find commonality to rule as class action due to the amount of pay they were receiving versus male employees pay. That was not enough to go on.

The Wal-Mart case was brought by women who claimed they were being discriminated against in pay and promotions. The U.S. Supreme Court decided against a class-action lawsuit because of the concept of “commonality.” Commonality in legal terms means that all the people involved in a class-action lawsuit must share similar issues or experiences. For the case to move forward as a class-action, the Supreme Court said that the women suing Wal-Mart needed to prove that they had common claims that applied to everyone in the class. The Court argued that the women didn’t show enough evidence of a company-wide policy that was unfair to all female employees. Since the women couldn’t prove that Wal-Mart’s actions were consistently the same across the entire company, they couldn’t form a valid class to sue together.

In the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011) case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a class- action lawsuit filed by female employees claiming gender discrimination at Wal-Mart could not proceed. The key reason for the Court’s decision was the failure to meet the “commonality” requirement for class actions. This legal term means that for a class to be certified, the plaintiffs must show that they share common legal or factual questions that can be resolved in a single trial. The Court concluded that plaintiffs failed to prove commonality because their claims were too diverse: the employees worked for different managers, in different regions, with different experiences. Wal-Mart’s management system was so decentralized that there was no company wide policy or practice affecting all employees similarly. Thus, the case could not be maintained as a class action.

The Supreme Court refused to certify a class-action complaint filed by female employees who claimed widespread gender discrimination in salary and promotions in the 2011 Duke v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc ruling. The concept of “commonality,” which is a prerequisite under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) that stipulates that there must be questions of law or fact that are common to the class in order for it to be certified as a class action, was the basis for the Court’s ruling.

According to the Court, the plaintiffs had to show that there were legal or factual issues that were shared by the class in order to satisfy the commonality requirements and potentially result in a class-wide settlement of the dispute. This implies that class members’ claims must be based on a shared argument of a kind that can be decided by the entire class. However, because local managers’ individual hiring decisions varied widely throughout the company, the Court determined that the respondents’ claims—that Wal-Mart participated in a pattern or practice of discrimination—did not meet this threshold.

The Court’s consideration of the plaintiffs’ evidence served as the foundation for its reasoning. The plaintiffs claimed that gender discrimination was a result of Wal-Mart’s corporate culture, but the court decided that this was insufficient evidence to establish a widespread discriminatory policy within the company. The plaintiffs’ evidence was deemed inadequate by the Court to show a “general policy” as needed under the commonality requirement. It made the point that because Wal-Mart had a wide range of jobs and managers, any asserted discrimination was not consistent and could not meet the requirements for a class action.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that the plaintiffs’ attempts to demonstrate differences using affidavits from a limited number of workers were insufficient and did not support a conclusion that all of the women in the purported class shared characteristics. According to the Court, there must be substantial evidence that the defendant committed systemic discrimination that had a comparable impact on the whole class in order for class certification to be granted.

This decision reaffirmed that the commonality requirement cannot be satisfied by merely asserting discrimination; rather, there must be a solid, supporting body of evidence that demonstrates that there is a common thread that unites all of the claims and eventually leads to a common resolution for the entire class. The decision eventually made it more difficult for big class claims alleging systematic wrongs to be certified by clarifying the criteria for determining commonality in class-action cases.

To answer the discussion board question, in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case, the Supreme Court  made a decision that had centered on the idea of “commonality” which was a requirement for class-action lawsuits. The case included over 1.5 million women that had made allegations towards Wal-Mart for their discrimination of women in the workplace through the imbalance of the amount they were paid and decisions regarding their promotions. Commonality in legal terms means the use of common questions of law or fact that affected the class. To proceed with the class, the plaintiffs had to find a basis on their claims of their discrimination that could be solved collectively. In a 5-4 decision that was ruled against the plaintiffs, they decided that there wasn’t a connected link between the corporate policies in the workplace that connected the acts of discrimination to each other. The importance of the court’s decision revealed the challenges that come with facing claims of systemic discrimination under class-action lawsuits. It displays the complex process of addressing that kind of discrimination in that environment.  

The supreme court decided that they will no longer proceed with the class action lawsuit regarding gender discrimination against Walmart, the court justified their decision based off two deciding factors. The first factor being “commonality” the justices decided the plaintiff (Duke) didn’t provide sufficient evidence in regard to the discrimination that affected all class members generally. The discriminatory practices were assigned to individual managers who were spread across the Wal-Mart chain. The second factor being “back pay”, the court believed back pay wasn’t suitable for class action under rule 23 b (2). Duke’s claim was under b (2) and the court states that the woman’s demand for back pay could only belong in a b (3) claim. It was rules as a misclassification.

The Supreme Court decided to go against plaintiffs in Walmart v. Dukes due to failing to meet rule 23s commonality Scalia stated that the claims made by the women did not outline a common issue or solution because of the multiple stores claims being unparalleled, therefore no common ground was reached to make their case. They also made a mistake by filing rule 23 (b) (2) instead of 23 (b) (3).

1. The supreme court decided in the Wal-Mart case that women could not sue walmart for employment discrimination as a group. They justify their decision by stating the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute. 

The Supreme Court case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes was a landmark case concerning the certification of class actions. The Court denied the request of the plaintiff class of almost 1.5 million women to combine into a single action against Wal-Mart for sex-based employment discrimination.

The central bulletin of the Court’s decision is found under the banner of ‘commonality,’ which requires that the members of the class have common questions of law or fact. Yet the plaintiffs find it very difficult to show that Wal-Mart’s managers exercised their discretion to make pay, promotion, or other employment decisions uniformly, in a way constitutive of a corporate policy.

The Court found that the claims presented in this case were too diverse and too individualistic to satisfy the commonality requirement. They concluded that there was insufficient evidence established indicating that Wal-Mart maintained a generalized discrimination policy.

This case exposes the complications of certifying class action for thousands upon thousands of class members where workplace discrimination allegations are involved. It strongly emphasizes establishing some base commonality among all class members wishing to bring a class action.