Supreme Court in the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case decides that Wal- Mart won. The majority of the Supreme Court held that a small group of women did not represent all women and that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient “commonality”. They argued that “commonality” requires not only a common problem but also a common solution and equal compensation for all members.  Therefore, this case does not meet the common requirements of Rule 23 of Civil Procedure(“questions of law or fact.” ) In addition, on the issue of “the matter of classification vis-à-vis back pay” ruling. Class actions fall under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which specifies, among other things, what kinds of relief classes can seek. In general, classes seeking injunctive or declaratory relief file as a “b(2)” class. whereas classes seeking monetary relief file as a “b(3)” class. As a civil rights case suing under Title VII, this case was squarely b(2). But the court ruled that women’s additional claims for the unpaid wages-the equivalent of millions, if not billions, of dollars in withheld wages for women nationwide-could only fall under ab(3) claims. This misclassification is enough to undermine women’s class status. Therefore, the Supreme Court decided that Wal-Mart won in the case.

Leave a Reply