In the case of General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon (1981), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a single individual could not represent an entire class in a lawsuit unless there was evidence to prove that all members of said class had been subjected to similar discriminatory practices by the defendant. The plaintiff, Moises Falcon, alleged racial discrimination against his employer, General Telephone Company of Southwest and sought to file on behalf of himself and other Mexican-American employees who he claimed were also victims. However, it was found that Falcon failed to provide sufficient proof demonstrating commonality between his personal experience with discrimination and those allegedly experienced by others in his proposed class action suit. Therefore, according to Rule 23(a) which requires plaintiffs seeking class certification must show their claims are typical for all members involved; this ruling set precedent for future cases involving potential employment discrimination.

In the dissenting opinion of General Telephone Company of the Southwest v. Falcon, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was too restrictive and failed to consider how discrimination often operates in reality. He criticized their narrow interpretation of Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement for class action lawsuits, arguing it would make it more difficult for victims of systemic discrimination to seek redress collectively. He also disagreed with their view that a plaintiff must always prove they are part of an unlawfully discriminated group before being allowed to represent others similarly affected by such practices. Instead, he believed courts should have flexibility in determining whether a case can proceed as a class action based on its unique circumstances rather than rigid rules.