There are two important decisions made by the Supreme Court in Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The first was unanimous: that because monetary relief was sought instead of injunctive or declaratory relief, the case could not proceed as filed (as a Rule 23(b)(2) suit). The second decision ruled that the plaintiffs (Dukes and 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees) did not meet the prerequisite of commonality required by Rule 23(a), which in part states: “one or more members of a class may sue … only if: … (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class”. Justice Scalia’s argument was that to examine all claims for relief under the question of ‘Why was I disfavored’ would not produce a common answer. In other words, to assert that one was disfavored because they are a woman is not a commonality substantial enough to sue as a class.

In the Walmart case, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart’s favor by dismissing the lawsuit. Citing the idea of “commonality,” they claimed that the female employees had inadequately experienced prejudice in common. In the end, they thought that not all women at Walmart received the same treatment, which made it challenging to build a case on behalf of all women. Personally, I think this decision is flawed since it ignores any systemic problems that many women in the firm may have encountered.

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)

One of the most significant civil rights class action lawsuits in history involved thousands of female employees working at one of the world’s largest retailers, Wal-Mart there were 1.5 million women involved in this case. These women filed a lawsuit against the company, describing discrimination, sexism, inequality, and low wages. The case involved a significant number of women who had worked at Wal-Mart, and their allegations highlighted biases against women. The Supreme Court ruled that the case would not proceed due to a lack of commonality among the plaintiffs. This means that despite the prevalence of discrimination, the women who sued Wal-Mart did not share a common issue, nor a common solution to the problem. For instance, while some women were denied promotions, others were insulted or paid less than their male coworkers in different stores and all of them at different times.

The Wal-Mart case involving over a million women became a very huge case nationwide. It was about a substantial and obvious wage gap between the men and women, which still happens to be a big debate today. In the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided that the case would be thrown out. Even though there was a clear bias against women, the case did not meet the commonality requirement, which would be essential for a class action lawsuit. It was argued that wages and promotions were disputed amongst local managers. Therefore, each situation differed from each other and there was no common denominator to determine why the women were getting paid less.

1) In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided against letting it proceed as a class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs who were female Wal-Mart employees accused the company of gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The Court said they did not meet the “commonality” requirement. This means they did not show enough shared experiences or issues among all the plaintiffs. Instead, the Court found that any unfair treatment was due to individual store managers’ decisions, not a company-wide policy. Because of this the Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart and stopped the case from going forward as a class action which is very frustrating in my opinion.

1. In the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not meet the “commonality” requirement essential for a class-action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, argued that the claims lacked common questions of law or fact because the alleged discrimination did not stem from a unified company policy but rather from decisions made by numerous local managers. This decentralization meant that the experiences of the plaintiffs were too varied to constitute a single class with common legal issues to address collectively. As a result, the case could not proceed as a class action.

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? (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).

Wal-Mart was called in question to address accusations made by millions of women about discrimination on the lines of sex, pay and promotion. Plaintiff could not verify if they all were harmed or affected by the same said event. It didn’t coincide, says the lack of common relation or validity on the supreme court’s ruling. For it to be a class action suit the cases seemed less plural and more singular in terms of actions and not just specific gender. The court concluded that and decided to dismiss and disagree with the suit requiring commonality to be ruled in favor. The courts questioned the facts of all common problems and solutions, not 100% of each case all legitimized the accusations raised by some or even most. 

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, the Supreme Court decided that the class action lawsuit would not be continued due to the plaintiffs lack of commonality. The Wal-Mart lawsuit involved 1.5 million women who filed the lawsuit for gender discrimination. Commonality refers to shared experience, backgrounds, or even interests with someone else. The court argued that since the women worked in different areas and had different responsibilities they could not ask questions that all the women would have in common. So it was decided the the plaintiffs did not meet the prerequisite of commonality.