1. What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case?

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously the women in the case Walmart v. Dukes, 2011, failing to meet the rule of 23 requirement of commonality for back pay. Miss classifying their class under the rule 23. The amount of back pay would have added up to millions even billions of dollars in withheld wages for women across the country, this was only possible by filing b(3) claim. As the women filed under the “b(2)” class this made the case go back to square one. When making commonality central to the women’s ruling a split decision of 5-4 the Dukes failed agin to meet the rule 23s (a)(2)commonality requirement. Question of fact or law, a class must share the same problem and common solutions to the problem and equally be compensated at once. 

The court viewed the women who worked in various stores, regions and with different manager. This lead them to believe that every women’s situation was different not similar. Under commonality there was no single common policy that affected every women in the same way. Even thought they argued isn’t being a women enough to be the glue to decide that these women were affected by being a certain sex. Statistically Women made less in all Wal-mart regions and and were under promoted, the court made a decision on these stats that proved all women did not suffer the same discrimination in the same way. A diverse group with no single common issue cannot be brought together legally. Their must be a central problem and solution. The disparities in pay or promotion do not show a uniform company discriminatory practice. As here omen we’re fighting culture of sexism the court rejected the ideas of discrimination. Making it harder for women to be recognized as a class that go through widespread pattern of discrimination and sexism. Like women being told to blow the cobwebs off their makeup and doll up. Expert testimony were rejected by the court because it did not tie to a specific discriminatory practice anywhere.