The Supreme Court decided against the women in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, ruling that they could not proceed with their lawsuit as a single, massive class action. The core of their justification revolved around the legal requirement of “commonality” for class action lawsuits. This means that everyone in the group suing must share a common problem or be affected by the same issue in a sufficiently similar way. The Court, led by Justice Scalia, argued that despite the widespread evidence of sex discrimination at Wal-Mart, the individual experiences of the 1.5 million women were too varied to meet this “commonality” standard. They reasoned that because women were denied different promotions, received different pay discrepancies, and faced different discriminatory comments or actions from different managers in different stores, there wasn’t a single, unified reason or “glue,” as Scalia put it, that tied all these instances together in a way that could be addressed with a single legal solution for the entire group. Furthermore, the Court noted that the women were seeking both systemic changes (injunctive relief) and individual back pay (monetary relief), and the complexity of calculating and distributing different amounts of money to so many individuals further undermined the idea of a “common” solution for the class. This decision, therefore, basically stated that while many women at Wal-Mart may have faced sexism, their individual experiences of this discrimination were not sufficiently “common” in the eyes of the law to allow them to sue as one unified group.