The Supreme Court case “Dukes v. Wal-Mart” raises a question: Can women be represented as a class in a lawsuit? The Supreme Court finally answered the question as no. Judge Antonin Scalia joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan represented the majority opinion that 1.5 million of women can not be certified as a class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit.

One crucial factor for the decision is the class action requirement of “commonality.” Justices Antonin Scalia stated that 1.5 million of women is too broad to fit the requirement of commonality. On top of that, not all 1.5 million of female employee facing the exact same issue posed by Walmart. Therefore, there is no “one size fits all” solution to the problem. Which is another requirement for a class action lawsuit.

1. The Supreme Court decided in the Wal-Mart case, Wal-Mart wins the case. First of all, Dukes has additional requirements for arrears of wages. The amount she raised is too large, and the wage claim belongs to b3. This misclassification is enough to damage the class status of women and put her lawsuit at a disadvantage. Secondly, in this case, “commonality” became the core of their ruling. It must have a common problem and a common solution. However, the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not deprived of the same promotion by the same manager , the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, so the Wal-Mart case could not be filed, and the Supreme Court finally ruled that Wal-Mart won the case.

LiLiu

Professor Arto Artinian

POL100 (0502): Discussion Board 12.1

June 27, 2021

These questions are based on the “Sex Class Action” article:

1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision?

The Supreme Court decided in the Wal-Mart case that the Supreme Court ruled that Wal-Mart won the case. In this case, the plaintiff tried to represent 1.6 million women, including women who are currently working or who have worked in Wal-Mart stores. However, the majority of judges of the Supreme Court believe that a small group of women cannot represent a female class, and the plaintiff does not have enough “commonality” to constitute a class. Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court expressed that “commonality” should be a class that must not only have a common problem, but also a common solution and a solution that compensates all members equally. The women represented by the plaintiff Dukes were not rejected, insulted, and degraded by the same store and the same manager. Therefore, the class represented by Dukes does not meet the common requirements of Rule 23 of Civil Procedure, which is “questions of law or fact.”

Moreover, the court ruled that the class represented by Dukes did not meet the “b(2)” class in Article 23 of the Civil Procedure Rules on class actions. Because the women represented by the plaintiff Dukes At the same time they demand wage claims, which should be classified as “b(3)” class. Thus, the court ruled that the plaintiff belonged to the “b(3)” class because the court held that the amount of wages paid by women was too high and could only be classified as a “b(3)” claim. This misclassification prevents Dukes and the women she represents from seeking injunctions or declarative relief. This not only harmed the class status of women, but also put the plaintiff at a disadvantage. Therefore, the Supreme Court decided that Wal-Mart won in the case. 

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).

In the Wal-Mart case lawsuit against his former employer, for disability discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to Wal Mart, Canchola was terminated for violating the company’s sexual harassment policies. After a jury trial, the trial court rendered judgment in Canchola’s favor. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Wal-Mart challenges the judgment on a number of grounds, including the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court announced that the company was ought to compensate for each and every employee that was working at the time when the store abruptly shut. To me the U.s Supreme Court was partitioned. Notwithstanding the way that the high court never gave a decision looking into the issue preferences, the somewhat misguided choice safe houses ladies who worked at Wal-Mart from handling America’s greatest private executive as a brought together gathering the country over constraining every lady to by and by record her suppositions or rather in therapist, activity bunches. The incomparable court disregarded more than forty years of respectable statute and persistently obliged the shots of the specialists to fight separation as a class movement unit. All the more essentially, the court’s tremendously traditionalist judgment gave a ton of center to the sheer frequency of a corporate against separation structure, in spite of the way that the skeleton appeared to be not to have been stuck to. The court’s choice appears to give a dim future sign to further laborers class activity cases and a guaranteeing future for bosses to proceed utilizing very biased compensation and sex separation exercises.

1- What did the Supreme Court decision in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the keyword here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what these legal terms mean, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In this case, the Supreme Court was to examine whether a small group of women who initiated the suit represent a gigantic class of women.  The Supreme Court unanimously opposed the trial court’s decision by reversing the opinion made by the lower court. For instance, Justice Scalia justified by saying that; the commonality proof in the matter overlapped the respondents’ contention merits that Wal-Mart engaged in patterned discrimination. Further, it was established that the women’s demand for back pay would have amounted to billions of dollars in withheld wages all over the country and that the claim could only belong to the provisions outlined in claim b(3) of rule 23. The latter was argued by a justice Ginsburg.