Wal-Mart V. Dukes

576 Words3 Pages
Case Questions Wal-Mart v. Dukes 1. Current and former Wal-Mart employees sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and back pay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees, because of Wal-Mart's alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title VII. The US Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling finding that certification of the class was not consistent with Rule 23(a), and the back pay claims were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2). (1) Under Rule 23(a), plaintiffs cannot prove "common questions of law or fact." Plaintiffs wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once, but there was no "significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination." Wal-Mart's announced policy forbids discrimination and has penalties for violations. Plaintiffs' only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist's analysis asserting that Wal-Mart's corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias, but he could not estimate what percent of the decisions might be determined by stereotypical thinking. Wal-Mart's policy gives local managers discretion, but it is unlikely that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction. Plaintiffs' attempt to show such direction by means of statistical and anecdotal evidence fell short. (2) Under Rule 23(b) (2), the back pay claims were improperly certified. Rule 23(b) (2) applies only when a single, indivisible remedy would provide relief to each class member. Individualized monetary claims belong instead in Rule 23(b) (3), with its procedural protections of predominance, superiority, mandatory notice, and the right to opt out. Plaintiffs' argument that back pay claims do not "predominate" over their claims for injunctive and declaratory
Open Document