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 Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court ruled against the women plaintiffs, deciding that they could not proceed as a single class in their lawsuit against the company. The Court justified its decision based on the legal concept of commonality, a key requirement for class-action lawsuits under Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. According to the majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the women suing Wal-Mart did not share enough common issues of fact or law to qualify as a class. Scalia argued that although all the women alleged sex discrimination, they experienced it differently across different stores and managers, meaning there was no single answer that would resolve every woman’s claim at once. He emphasized that without some glue holding their claims together—such as a clear, companywide discriminatory policy—the case lacked the necessary unity to be treated collectively. As a result, the Court concluded that the women’s experiences were too individualized and varied to satisfy the commonality requirement, and therefore the class-action lawsuit could not move forward.