- In the Walmart case, the supreme court found that the plaintiff’s evidence did not demonstrate commonality required for a class action lawsuit under Rule 23’s commonality requirement because the lawsuit did not have a “commonality” of 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employes who were denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.
2 thoughts on “Kadidia Kone Discussion Board 12”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hi Kadidia,
Thanks for your summary of the Walmart case. I think you explained it well. It’s really surprising how even though 1.5 million women had similar experiences, the court said it wasn’t enough to count as a class action. That shows how hard it can be to fight discrimination legally, even when many people are affected. It also makes me think about how the system sometimes protects big companies instead of workers.
Great job!
You did a great job summarizing the Supreme Court’s reasoning in the Walmart case. The point about “commonality” under Rule 23 is key—especially how the Court emphasized that the women’s experiences weren’t all tied to a single policy or decision-maker. That really shows how difficult it can be to hold a large corporation accountable when discrimination happens in more subtle or decentralized ways.
At the same time, it raises big questions: just because the discrimination wasn’t identical for all 1.5 million women, does that mean it wasn’t systematic? It’s frustrating to think that widespread patterns of unequal treatment might go unaddressed just because they don’t look exactly the same in every case. It seems like the Court’s decision set a very high bar for proving shared experiences in workplace discrimination cases.
Thanks for highlighting this issue—it really shows how legal definitions can affect the ability to fight for justice.