The Supreme Court decided that the women in the Wal-Mart case could not sue as one big group. They said the lawsuit failed the requirement of “commonality,” which means everyone in the group must share the same main issue. The Court argued that Wal-Mart’s managers made pay and promotion decisions on their own, store by store, so the discrimination wasn’t caused by one single policy. Because of this, the Court believed the women’s experiences were too different from each other to count as one unified problem. So the case was rejected as a class-action because the Court said there was no clear, common issue linking all the women together.
3 thoughts on “Ei Ei Moe – Discussion Board 12.1”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The court’s decision is clearly and thoroughly described. They rejected the Walmart case because women didn’t share one common issue. The management in each store made its own choices which made it hard to use a single policy of discrimination. Since experiences were too different, the court said the group couldn’t sue as one class, indeed. Great take!
Hi Ei Ei,
I think you explained the Supreme Court’s decision really well. I like how you broke down the idea of commonality because that part can be confusing. Your point about the women having different experiences at different stores makes the ruling easier to understand. It shows why the Court didn’t see it as one big unified problem.
Overall, your explanation was clear and straight to the point. Nice job.
Hey Ei Ei: I like how you focused on the idea that their experiences were ‘too different’ for the Court to count them as a unified problem. It really shows how high the bar is for a class-action lawsuit. Even if thousands of women felt they were being treated unfairly, the fact that there wasn’t one specific written policy to point to basically ended their case. Good catch on the ‘commonality’ requirement being the dealbreaker.