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).

= So first Betty Dukes was suing on behalf of all women who had worked at Wal-Mart between 1998 and 2011, she was claiming gender discrimination in pay and promotions but the supreme court ruled against the women because this case failed to meet the rule “23’s commonality requirement”, according to the article it says “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” this means that the women didn’t have enough in common to be considered a single group for the lawsuit.

Since in a class-action lawsuit, people need to show that all members of the group suffered the same kind of harm because of the same policy or action and for example in this case decisions were made at the store level by individual managers “which goes against of what commonality is and is required” , this means that there was no common issue that ties all these women’s claims together.