Veronica Gonzalez
POL 100 (0504) – Intro. to American Govt. – Fall 2022
Discussion Board 12.1
Q1. In Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, female employees sued Wal-Mart on the basis of sex discrimination on the job (affecting pay and promotions). The women in the lawsuit decided to sue as a group or “class”. When the case finally was heard by the Supreme Court, though presented with ample evidence that Wal-Mart had indeed created an environment of sex discrimination against their female employees, their decision was not favorable to the women employees. The Supreme Court decided that the female employees misclassified their class action lawsuit when asking for back pay as damages. The class action lawsuit should have been brought under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure b(3), but it was brought under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure b(2), the prior would have been appropriate in allowing the case to qualify as a class action lawsuit, providing them with monetary damages. Secondly, there were issues with commonality. Commonality applied in this case meant that all female employees discriminated against had to have experienced the same discriminatory practices i.e., denied the same promotions, pay raises, were discriminated against in the same store and by the same supervisor/manager, which was not the case for all the female employees involved in the lawsuit. Even though they were all discriminated against based on their sex (female), the commonality requirements that would be required i.e., same manager, same store, say pay raise, were not met, which also meant that without commonality, compensation could not be paid out to all the plaintiffs in equal form. According to the Supreme Court, in Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a class action lawsuit with commonality requirements was not met.