What did the Supreme Court decision in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it relates to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand this legal term, as it is key to the court’s decision).

Walmart vs Dukes was a case broken down to its logistics. It was concluded that 1.5 million women could not partake in a class-action lawsuit. The decision was finalized by “commonality”. All the women in the case served different positions at work. It also showed that there was no “real” pattern. Though the women in the case did not receive the same pay as their male co-workers, other women who were also employed did not have this issue. There was no commonality between them therefore, the case was not granted a win.

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.

1. In the event of the Walmart case, the supreme court decided that about 1.5 million women were not able or capable to be accepted to serve as a right class plaintiffs. Specifically, to be plaintiffs for a lawsuit for work bias against Walmart. The reason why they went through with this decision is because they justified it by claiming there is no commonality within the group of women in the lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Walmart in Wal-Mart v. Dukes. To rationalize this, the majority attempted to claim that because the number of people represented by the class-action suit was so large, they just can not all have commonality. They contended that the represented group in class action suits requires a common problem and a common solution. Dukes signified women who were protesting Walmart’s sexism culture, but not any marginalization written into their rules or caused by a single person. Individuals also did not all have the same sexist problem. The majority argued that because they did not all share the same problem, they could not solve their problem with a single broad solution. The Supreme Court ruled that 1.5 million females could not be authorized as a proper class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging workplace bias against Wal-Mart. It warranted its own decision by citing similarities. The commonality is described as the common people.  As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the defendants did not share enough commonalities to constitute and establish a class.

1. First the court decided that the women suing Wal-Mart could not seek back pay because they filed as a b(2) class instead of a b(3) class. What solidified them as a b(2) class was that they were suing under Title VII. The women’s demand for back pay could only belong in a class b(3) lawsuit. This misclassification compromised the women’s statues of suing as a class. Secondly the court decided in a 5-4 ruling that the suing class failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement. The court argued that since all the women were not denied the same promotions, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their case could not legitimately be litigated 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 decided to put an end to Betty Dukes v. Walmart stores which was a case that pitted over 1.5 million female Walmart workers against the country’s largest private employer. The court made commonality central to their ruling. The article states, “Scalia argued that to claim “commonality” a class must not only share a common problem but also a common solution to that problem—one that would compensate all members equally in a single stroke.” Throughout the year’s many female workers for Walmart noticed that they were being discriminated against and treated differently than men were. women were being paid less although they were doing the same type of work. The article mentioned how a woman who worked for walmart for many years trained a new young men to later find out she was receiving less then his pay.

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court decided that the 1.5 million females are not capable to be approved as a right class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for work bias against Wal-Mart. It justified its decision because of commonality. The commonality is defined to be the common people, for example, the type of class the common people come from, socio-economic class. Therefore, in 2011, the Supreme Court judged Walmart’s turn when they said that the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to comprise and to form a whole class.  

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 conclusion of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case was that the supreme court could not recognize that the 1.5 million women as class plaintiffs as one class and ruled in favor of Walmart. They justified this decision by stating that there was no commonality in the large group of women in the class action suit. Not all of the women being represented had the same issues, no pattern was found, and the commonality was not met. Not all women who worked for Walmart around the country in the years 1998 to 2011 faced the same discrimination, sexism, and bias.

1.) On the twentieth day of June in the year of 2011, marked a historic time period when the Supreme Court made a decision regarding the case of Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Betty Dukes was among over 1.5 million females that worked for Walmart, the country’s largest private employer. Many of these females had accused the retail giant for discrimination against sex in pay and promotions. Thus, a lawsuit was put into motion and Dukes aimed to sue Wal-Mart for such. Various female workers had became aware of the fact that male employers were being treated better; a noticeable gap in salaries and limited promotion opportunities. Their case proved to be quite convincing because multiple studies were conducted to analyze the difference in pay over the course of the 13 years. Not to mention, it became evident that Wal-Mart was violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employment discrimination based on several factors; including sex. While the case took a long time to be settled, a conclusion was made on June.20th,2011. The Supreme Court had decided to rule in Walmart’s favor because the plaintiffs did not share enough in common to constitute a class. Basically, since the plaintiff included over 1.5 million female employees, the Supreme Court made it apparent that not all of the women dealt with the same issues of inequality in the company due their sex. For example, one female employee in a particular store would face discrimination of sex because of a manager but another would not and face another issue in relations to discrimination. So, not only would it proved to be difficult for all females to share their dilemma with the company but the Supreme Court cannot find a solution that would meet the needs of all. Overall, the Supreme Court had decided to turn down their point and focus on Wal-Mart who had a straight-forward statement which led to an easier solution.

1.) In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Walmart. To justify this, the majority stated that, because the amount of people represented by the class-action suit was so large, they could not all have commonality. They argued that the represented group in class action suits need a common problem and a common solution. Dukes represented women who were protesting Walmart’s culture of sexism, but not any discrimination written into their rules or stemming from one particular person. They also did not all have the same sexist type of problem (i.e. they weren’t all denied the same position in favor of a less experienced male candidate). The majority argued that, because they did not all have the same problem, there was no way that they could solve their issue with one sweeping solution.