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 reading, Betty Dukes was in the process of filing a Class act lawsuit against Wal-mart for pay gaps due to gender discrimination. Betty Dukes filed the case and was given a ruling that the women did not qualify for back pay since all of their instances were not in common. Like same positions, or same stores, etc.
Hey Rached, Your response was pretty simple, it would of been a little better if you went into detail when answering the question but I understand that you read the reading and that you are right that the suit against wal-mart was not won by the women due to the lack of commonality.