The Supreme Court ruled in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case that the 1.5 female employees could sue Wal-Mart for employment and sex discrimination. The Court’s ruling was justified because they made commonality the central to their ruling. The class represented failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement. This requirement stated that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. The class of females must not only share a common problem, but also a common solution to that problem. For instance, because all 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. Scalia referred to commonality like glue. She states “Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question.” However the revision of what constituted “commonality” raised more questions. It showed that a group of people who have historically been denied recognition as an oppressed, exploited class, were again being denied that recognition under major civil rights law.

One thought on “Anjanie Krishnanan

Leave a Reply