The courts can usually better protect the rights of the individual compared to political institutions of government, such as Congress or the President or the Mayor, because they are removed from the political pressures that bind elected members. Judges do not feel subject to the need to get votes or to appease party interests. Therefore, they can remain unbiased and focus on constitutional principles and individual rights. The Supreme Court can ensure people’s rights even when the popular consensus or elected representatives hold a contrary view.

For example, the matter of the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. While politicians may have been motivated by issues of national security and public opinion during the war, the Court, while initially affirming the internment in Korematsu v. United States (1944), had subsequent opportunity to revisit and hone its position towards individual rights in later decisions (albeit the Korematsu case itself was never technically overruled, but was subject to fervent criticism and overshadowed by later holdings). Earlier, in the recent past, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) is a case in which the Court protected individual rights (same-sex marriage) against the majority of states and the then-prevailing public opinion. This indicates how the Court is ready to protect individuals even against the political tide.

On the other hand, elected government branches may avoid unpopular options because their survival is founded on popular favor and re-election. For instance, the majority of politicians may be reluctant to implement policies that protect minority groups or end racial discrimination if such actions are unpopular with a large portion of their constituents or interest groups sponsoring their campaigns. Thus, the Court has the unique advantage of being shielded from the pressure to respond to the moods of voters, and hence it is more likely to be effective at protecting individual rights, especially when the majority may not be in favor. On the other hand, elected government branches may avoid unpopular options because their survival is founded on popular favor and re-election. For instance, the majority of politicians may be reluctant to implement policies that protect minority groups or end racial discrimination if such actions are unpopular with a large portion of their constituents or interest groups sponsoring their campaigns. Thus, the Court has the unique advantage of being shielded from the pressure to respond to the moods of voters, and hence it is more likely to be effective at protecting individual rights, especially when the majority may not be in favor.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) came to the decision now to allow some 1.5 million female employees class action lawsuits to proceed. This was solely based on the legal idea of commonality, which requires that plaintiffs have enough legal and factual relationship in order to be regarded as a group. Justice Scalia, on behalf of the majority said that “without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together,” there could be no clear way to answer the question of, “Why was I disfavored” for all plaintiffs at once (Tortorici). The Court discovered that each of the women who experienced discrimination were too different, being that pay and promotions were based on a single individual by various managers and not a single company policy. Finally, the Court ruled there was no apparent, common motive for the alleged gender discrimination of all the women, deeming their class action lawsuit unsuitable under legal standards. Dayna Tortorici argues, by redefining commonality so narrowly, “By stripping the Dukes plaintiffs of their technical, legal commonality, the Court had undercut something much more important” (Tortorici). This shows that the courts neglected to acknowledge the systemic discriminations because they focused too much on the legal procedures. 

Works Cited

Tortorici, Dayna. “Sex Class Action.” n+1, no. 14, Summer 2012,

https://www.nplusonemag.com/issue-14/politics/sex-class/.

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided that the group of women suing the company couldn’t move forward as a class-action lawsuit. The Court said the main reason was because there wasn’t enough “commonality” among all their claims. In other words, the women had different experiences and reasons for why they believed they were treated unfairly, so their situations weren’t similar enough to be handled all together in one big case. The Court explained that for a class-action lawsuit to work, everyone’s claim needs to share a common issue that ties them closely together—kind of like how all members of a team have to be playing the same game, not just wearing the same jersey.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes case (2011) was a major ruling concerning class-action lawsuits, particularly regarding the concept of commonality.

In the 2011 case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled against a group of female employees who attempted to file a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotions. The women claimed that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture allowed managers to exercise discretion in a way that systematically disadvantaged female employees. They research to represent a nationwide class of 1.5 million women, arguing that they were all affected by the same discriminatory practices. 

The key issue in the case was whether the plaintiffs met the legal requirement of commonality, which is essential in class-action lawsuits. Commonality means that all members of the class must share a common question of law or fact that can be resolved in a single stroke. The Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision written by Justice Scalia, found that the women did not demonstrate a common issue tying all their claims together. Since decisions about pay and promotions were made by thousands of different managers across various locations, the Court ruled there was no single policy of discrimination that applied uniformly to all the plaintiffs. 

The Court emphasized that without a unifying “glue” holding the claims together, a class-action suit could not move forward. Because of the lack of commonality, the lawsuit was deemed too broad and diverse to be handled as a class. This decision significantly raised the bar for certifying class-action lawsuits, especially in employment discrimination cases, by requiring stronger evidence that the entire group suffered the same harm in the same way. 

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided that the group of women who sued Wal-Mart for discrimination could not move forward as a single class-action lawsuit. The Court justified its decision by saying that the women did not show enough “commonality” meaning they didn’t have enough in common to be treated as one group for the lawsuit. The Court explained that, for a class action lawsuit to happen, everyone in the group must have the same legal issue in a clear way. In this case, the experiences of the women were too different from each other, so the Court said they couldn’t combine all their claims into one big lawsuit.

In Wal-Mart, Inc. v Dukes (2011), the United States Supreme Court sharply limited the scope of class-action litigation by denying certification to a class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employee alleging systemic sex discrimination. The Court’s decision turned fundamentally on the legal principle of “commonality,” as defined under Rule 23(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that their claims depend upon a common contention capable of classwide resolution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia articulated a demanding standard: it is not enough for class members to allege that they suffered similar harms; they must also show that those harms stem from the same underlying policy or practice whose legality can be adjudicated uniformly across the class. In this case, the plaintiff contended that Wal-Mart’s decentralized system of managerial discretion, coupled with a corporate culture allegedly permissive of gender bias, resulted in widespread discrimination. However, the Court found that the discretion granted to local managers severed the necessary thread of commonality. Without a centralized, uniformly applied discriminatory policy, the plaintiffs’ grievances were too individualized to satisfy the requirements for class certification.

The Court’s reasoning reflects a broader skepticism toward expansive class-action mechanisms, particularly in employment discrimination cases where subjective decision-making predominates. By insisting on a tightly defined, common question of law or fact, the decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes raised significant procedural barriers for plaintiffs seeking to aggregate claims of institutional discrimination. It underscored the judiciary’s role in policing the boundaries of collective litigation and reaffirmed the principle that procedural cohesion is a prerequisite to accessing the powerful mechanisms of the class-action device.

In the case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes in 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a large group of women working at Wal-Mart couldn’t move forward with a class-action lawsuit claiming they were treated unfairly in pay and promotions. The women, who represented over 1.5 million employees, said that Wal-Mart’s company culture allowed for discrimination. However, the Court looked at whether these women had enough in common, a legal term called ‘commonality,’ to be part of a class-action lawsuit. According to a rule in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a class can only be formed if there are shared legal questions or facts among the members. The Court concluded that the women did not show enough commonality. Since local managers at Wal-Mart made their own decisions about pay and promotions, there wasn’t one clear policy that could be seen as the reason for discrimination for all the women. The Supreme Court pointed out that without something connecting their experiences, the case couldn’t go forward as a class-action. Justice Scalia noted that a class-action needs more than just similar complaints; it needs the complaints to come from the same issue that can be solved with a common legal solution, which wasn’t the case here.

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? (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).

1. The meaning of production and labor are important concepts in understanding how goods and services are created. The means of production includes all the resources and tools needed for making things, like factories, machines, land, and raw materials such as cotton for clothing or iron for buildings. It also involves non-physical aspects like knowledge, techniques, patents, and the way organizations are structured to help in production. Labor refers to the human effort, both physical and mental, that goes into making products. For instance, in a car factory, the means of production would consist of assembly lines, welding machines, and steel, while the labor would be the workers who put the cars together, operate the machines, and check the quality of the finished vehicles.

2.Understanding the idea of value is really important when looking at capitalism, especially according to Marx. He talks about two main types of value. The first is use-value, which is all about how useful something is for meeting our needs or desires. For instance, a loaf of bread has use-value because it can be eaten and gives us energy. The second type is exchange-value, which refers to how much something is worth in the market, like how much it can be traded for other items or money. For example, a loaf of bread might cost $3, or you could swap it for something else, like a gallon of milk. Marx believes that the value of a product comes from the labor that goes into making it. He explains that the value is based on the amount of time it takes to produce something when using average skills and technology. If new technology makes it quicker to create an item, then its value goes down because it takes less effort to make.

3. Labor is super important for the economy because it changes raw materials into the finished products we use every day, like clothes, furniture, and many other things. This change is really important since raw materials don’t mean much to us when they’re just sitting there. For example, a bunch of cotton or some wooden planks aren’t very helpful until talented workers use their skills and creativity to turn them into things we can actually use. If there weren’t any workers to do this, the economy would have a hard time working properly because those raw materials would just sit there, not being useful at all. The value of labor goes beyond just making things; it also includes the creativity and skill that workers put into their jobs, which makes the products we buy even better. Usually, there’s a clear connection between how much time and effort goes into making something and how much it costs in the market: the more time and hard work it takes to create a product, the more valuable it usually is. You can see this in many industries where detailed work or a lot of labor can really raise the price of an item. But in a capitalist system, this idea doesn’t always mean that workers get paid fairly. Often, the money workers earn doesn’t match the real value of what they do. Things like company profits, competition in the market, and unfair treatment can lead to situations where workers don’t get paid enough, even though they put in a lot of hard work and skill. This difference brings up important questions about fairness in the job market, showing that we need a better system that really values and rewards the hard work of labor.

4. The difference between labor and labor power is really important in understanding Marx’s ideas about capitalism. Labor refers to the actual tasks that people do, like when a factory worker puts together a phone. On the other hand, labor power is about the worker’s capacity to do that work, which they offer to the employer in return for a paycheck.This distinction is significant because workers aren’t selling their actual work directly; instead, they are selling their ability to work for a specific amount of time, like during an 8-hour shift. During that time, they often create more value than what they receive in wages, and this extra value is what Marx calls surplus value.

5. Surplus value is a key concept in Marxist economics, representing the additional value created by labor beyond workers’ wages. It is essential for understanding profit generation in capitalism, where the relationship between labor and capital is vital.In a capitalist system, business owners aim to maximize profits, with surplus value being a crucial element.This concept shows the gap between the value workers produce and their compensation, as workers generate more value than they receive in wages.To increase surplus value, business owners may extend working hours, allowing for greater output and spreading fixed labor costs over more production. They may also reduce wages, enabling them to capture a larger share of the value created, which can negatively impact workers’ living standards and contribute to economic inequality. Additionally, businesses often enhance productivity by adopting advanced machinery and innovative techniques.