1. The Supreme Court decided in the Wal- Mart v. Dukes case that the 1.5 million female workers in Walmart could classify as a class action lawsuit because not all the 1.5 million female workers were “sex – discriminated”, denied equal paychecks, and denied a pay raise. In reading 12.2 it states, “Because the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.”Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together,” Scalia said, “it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question, Why was I disfavored.” (Tortorici 6)This example shows how the case takes a turn and does not have enough evidence to go forward because not all the women went through the same as Dukes. Another example in reading 12.1 states, “Bringing these numbers to life, Dukes offered damning anecdotes from the plaintiffs: women who were told by their managers to “blow the cobwebs off their makeup and doll up” if they ever wanted to advance in the company; or reminded that “God made Adam first, so women will always be second to men”; or asked if they wouldn’t rather be at home, raising their kids, than seeking out promotions—all while their male colleagues’ fatter paychecks were justified by the assertion that men were “breadwinners.” (Tortorici 2) This example shows how sexism is shown in the way they speak to women if they ask for a raise or promotion, and how easily they give their jobs to men when the majority of women stay for decades in their positions meanwhile men get promoted in the blink of an eye. The supreme court ruling didn’t favor Duke’s side and favored Walmart’s side because Duke may have been sex-discriminated and turned down to get an equal pay raise, other women didn’t go through the same situation so she couldn’t advocate for all 1.5 million female workers without sufficient evidence.

1. In the case of Betty Dukes v. Walmart Stores Inc, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Walmart based on two legal concerns that the Court had to consider. The first concern was mainly ruled on procedural grounds, as the class action’s multiple demands placed their class into two different class distinctions, which in turn jeopardized its total standing as a class entirely. Since it was very cut and dry, the Supreme Court ruled on this unanimously. The second concern was more nuanced. In a 5-4 ruling the court made the determination that the class action did not meet the commonality requirement, which means that there has to be “questions of law and fact” that the entire group being represented in the class share. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the class had to share common problems and solutions to the problems. Because the class was so large in size and each individual in the class had varying/different levels of wrongdoing, the majority of the Court stated no solution could be legitimately be ruled on the plaintiffs at the same time.

It is so crazy how a country as big as American with so much history in sexism and racism decided not to move Forward with it because i’s was a 5-4 when women Decided to take action it was a fail men are gonna be paid more

The Supreme Court decided to set limitations to the case. According to Justice Antonin Scalia of the court, the Dukes’ case cannot be considered as a “class action” as the respondents cannot produce enough evidence to prove otherwise. Based on the narrative of the case, not all women employed by Wal-Mart had experienced the same level of discrimination from the company. Scalia furthered that in order for the Dukes to make a claim under class action of rule 23, there should be one problem identified collectively among the class members and a common solution to it. 

In view thereof, there is an obvious question that the Supreme Court has to look into, and that is if the case itself satisfied the requirement of “commonality” in reference to Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. The respondents failed to give proofs to support this claim.

The supreme court decided that the 1.5 million female Walmart workers could be classified as a class action lawsuit because not all the women were treated the same or denied pay raise in all the Walmart locations. There was not enough evidence to or enough common evidence to build a case into a class action lawsuit in order for those women to receive monetary compensation.

Commonality is a legal term used for a certain outcome or event that each person has in common. something that binds the story together that everyone experienced.

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).

The Supreme Court made the decision in the Wal-Mart Case that there was not enough evidence to conduct a class. With this, Dukes had a stake in both legal and social matters that went beyond the women’s claims and Wal-Mart’s employment practices. The court had ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which would be consumer class actions. Unfortunately, this only caused the women’s class status to start back where they were. The Supreme Court also ruled that the class represented, failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement, that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. Due to this Supreme Court decision, the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.

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).

The Supreme Court ruled against it due to stating there was no commonality in the case. That meant that as stated in the text, the 1.5 million female employees didn’t all go through the same thing and inflicted disrespect by the same person. Therefore, since they didn’t come to a decision together they weren’t sure of what they wanted to present to the court.

In the Walmart v. Duke case, a female employee of Walmart Betty Dukes( lead plaintiff), along with a group of about 1.5 million women filed a class action lawsuit for sex discrimination in pay and promotion policies in Walmart stores. The Supreme court agreed to hear their argument and although these women had proof of this discrimination, the supreme court still ruled against them on first, the matter of classification. Dukes and women were asking for monetary relief for the damages, but they filed their class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure b(2) which in general is for classes seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. So, the court unanimously ruled against the women stating that since they were asking for money as payback, they should have filed the class action lawsuit as a b(3) class.  The issue of commonality is another way the supreme court justified its decision for ruling against Dukes and the women. In a split 5-4 decision, the supreme court argued that because all the women involved in the suit were not all denied the same pay raise, promotion, obstructed by the same manager in the stay store, etc., they could not all be a part of the same lawsuit. And because the commonality requirement in the class action was not met, the women could not be compensated equally.

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).

Walmart v. Dukes made it through both the district courts and the court of appeals but they were send back to square one by the supreme court. The reason for this wasn’t because they ruled that the women were lying and the Walmart was justified, it was because the plaintiffs (the women suing Walmart) had too much variety in the injustices they experienced. All the plaintiffs have to be suing on the same grounds as each other and they weren’t, since they all suffered different levels/types of discrimination. This is why people said their case had TOO MUCH evidence in favor of Duke. The idea was for them to go back to square one in order to present a new case which could actually be won with the current legal system. In other words, the plaintiffs of a class action lawsuit must be suing for the same general reasons eg, wage gaps. However since the amount of plaintiff’s were 1.5 million women, there was too much variety in these women’s experiences to properly compensate them for the discrimination they faced.

• 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 case Wal-Mart v Betty Dukes , the Supreme Court decided not to move forward with the case , due to it being a 5 – 4 decision . It wasn’t justified not how they expected it to be , men are still getting paid more than women . So it’s like the whole case had no type of effect in a way .