1. The supreme court decided in the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case that over 1.5 women who worked at Walmart that sued Walmart due to gender discrimination ruled that there was a lack of commonality which means that they did not share enough issues legally and because of the sheer size of the lawsuit. Because of the sheer size of the lawsuit the class was not able to reach commonality because the court argued that not every woman worker has problems receiving higher pay, promotions and faces gender based discrimination which made it hard to find a commonality as a class. The Supreme Court was unsure on how to find a solution to every problem that every worker was having because to claim commonality you needed to have a common problem but also have a common solution that could compensate everyone fairly and equally and because they didn’t come from the same store with the same manager many problems were different in the eyes of the Supreme Court.

1. The court system is better suited to protect the individual because justices are not influenced by popular opinion, serve for life, and prioritize fairness in their decision. Elected branches of government may prioritize political interests over individual rights to maintain power.
2. The Supreme Court is not considered anti-democratic because it’s not elected, but appointed. This independence from the political process is important for maintaining separation of powers and checks and balances in democracy. Federal judges are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to ensure qualification and independence.

In the case of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court did not issue a decisive ruling on the case. Instead, the Court held that the lawsuit could not proceed as a class-action lawsuit due to a lack of commonality. The Court determined that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate a common question of law or fact that could be resolved through a single class action. The key commonality the Supreme Court missed was that around 1.5 million women who worked at Walmart were all saying they faced unfair treatment because of their gender.

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart case. The Court decided that approximately 1.5 million women could not be considered a valid class of plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Walmart for employment discrimination. Betty Dukes was the lead plaintiff, and she and others claimed that Walmart’s policies and practices discriminated against gender employees in terms of pay and promotion opportunities.
Both parties argued whether the class met the traditional commonalities requirements of numerosity, similarity, and typicality.
The Court ruled that it could not proceed as any type of class action since the grounds did not meet the certification of a class action. It was incredibly difficult to certify a class, the requirement to examine the merits of the class required an immense amount of documents supporting it. The balance of this situation would have changed if those 1.5 million women had brought together a single common argument that united them since numerous cases supported aspects of discrimination but in different contexts, conditions that made them inadmissible due to the lack of agreement that required the certification of rules 23(a) and 23(b)(2), some examples of inadmissibility were the diversity of Walmart store locations, the diversity of supervisors who carried out the discrimination, or the type of discrimination faired the complainants).

1. 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).

      The Supreme Court didn’t make a decision in the Wal-Mart case because they dismissed it due to the fact that all the women suing weren’t making the same complaint against the same person. According to them the case didn’t fit the description of a class-action lawsuit despite the fact that only women were suing. Only one gender suing showed that discrimination within the company was only towards women and not men. No commonality, as the Supreme Court stated, didn’t let women sue as a whole. This meant that an individual would need their own lawyer, 1.5 million women were suing. 

In the Wal-Mart case, the Supreme Court made a ruling on a class-action lawsuit that had been filed by female employees who claimed gender discrimination. The Court found that the lawsuit couldn’t proceed as a single class-action due to the lack of commonality among the female employees. This means that they didn’t share enough common legal or factual issues. The Court emphasized that commonality is a prerequisite for class certification, as per Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The female employees worked in different job positions and locations, making it impossible to pursue their claims collectively through a class-action lawsuit. Therefore, each employee’s claim had to be pursued individually.

1. What the Supreme Court decided to do in the Walmart case is took Walmarts side. Refused to certify the class action because of the commonality necessity .

1. 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 relates to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal term means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, the Supreme Court ruled against the 1.5 million women in the class-action lawsuit due to two questions of commonality within the case. The first concern was if the class should be able to receive monetary relief in addition to declaratory relief. The supreme court ruled against the proposed monetary relief stating that they did not file under b(3) (which would have allowed possible monetary relief) because the initial request was for declaratory relief, b(2). The second question of commonality within the case is if all women had a common “question of law or fact in the case. The Supreme Court feared that a ruling in favor of the class would result in an implausible common solution. Since the plaintiffs did not come from the same store, or area or had a problem with the same managers etc. they were unable to prove that they all had the same problem, but they reiterated even more saying that they would be unable to find a common solution for all of them. In a class-action lawsuit, according to civil procedure there needs not only to be a common problem between the class but they need to be affected the same/similarly and be on the same page about how they will receive retribution.

1. State court systems often allow more than one court system available to protect a person’s rights. Dual court system provides alternate venues in which to appeal for assistance. “State courts vary in the degree to which they take on certain types of cases or issues, give access to particular groups, or promote certain interests.” State courts can handle a wide array of issues for an individual, both civil and criminal, where federal branches and courts often take from previous rulings, there is more room for varying degrees of outcomes in a case without needing to have precedent.

2. Federal judges are appointed by the President at the time when a vacancy opens up. The president can use this to select judges whose views align more with their own. I think in terms of the Supreme Court, whose duty it is to make sure that certain cases held in lower courts uphold the constitution, it is understandable that the president oversees who is involved in that. However, I don’t agree that these positions should not have term limits. Presidents should not be able to decide who will serve as a federal judge for sometimes decades, because I do think it is undemocratic for one person to have such a long-standing influence over political decisions despite no longer holding office themselves.

1. In Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs in the case: Betty Dukes and 1.5 Million other female War-Mart employees, were not considered a protected class. They decided that because the discrimination happened in multiple different stores and was perpetrated by “individuals” rather than Wal-Mart as a whole, there was no basis for a class-action lawsuit.