1. The Supreme Court did not rule in favor of the 1.5 million women employees. The reason for this was first of all technical issues that came from the case itself. The women had filed the case as a B2 class case, which means they wanted Walmart to fix their ways. But under the same case they asked for back pay, which is under B3. So their case contradicted. Also, the idea of commonality. A class action lawsuit is when a whole group has the same issue so all the 1.5M women sued Walmart as 1 class. The women said their cause was the same, however, Scalia said that commonality needs a shared solution as well not just a shared problem. Since all the women were denied different promotions, in different stores, by different people, there was technically nothing in commonality. The problem is with this instance that with the rhetoric the judge used, no class action can go forward as the problem and solution have to be completely identical.

In Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court first ruled unanimously against Dukes based on a procedural issue. Because the case was seeking monetary damages, the Court ruled the case must have been filed as a “b(3)” claim under Civil Procedure rules; the case was filed as a “b(2)” claim. The Court also ruled 5-4 against Dukes on the matter of “commonality”; that a class must not only share a common problem but also a common solution.  To paraphrase, because not every woman suffered the same exact level or kind of discrimination, it would be impossible to determine or propose the same exact solution for all the aggrieved parties in the case. The irony isn’t lost that all the Justices that ruled in the majority were men.

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).