Term: 2010
Docket: 10-277
Wal-mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner v. Betty Dukes Et Al.
- Pro
10-277 WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES DECISION BELOW: 603 F.3d 571 LIMITED TO QUESTION I PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. IN ADDITION TO QUESTION I, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: "WHETHER THE CLASS CERTIFICATION ORDERED UNDER RULE 23(b)(2) WAS CONSISTENT WITH RULE 23(a)." CERT. GRANTED 12/6/2010 QUESTION PRESENTED: In a sharply divided 6-5 decision that conflicts with many decisions of this Court and other circuits, the en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification of the largest employment class action in history. This nationwide class includes every woman employed for any period of time over the past decade, in any of Wal-Mart's approximately 3,400 separately managed stores, 41 regions, and 400 districts, and who held positions in any of approximately 53 departments and 170 different job classifications. The millions of class members collectively seek billions of dollars in monetary relief under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that tens of thousands of Wal-Mart managers inflicted monetary injury on each and every individual class member in the same manner by intentionally discriminating against them because of their sex, in violation of the company's express anti-discrimination policy. The questions presented are: I. Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) - which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief - and, if so, under what circumstances. II. Whether the certification order conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 04-16688, 04-16720
In the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al., 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart by a 5-4 vote on June 20, 2011. The class-action lawsuit was brought forward by female employees who alleged that they were victims of gender discrimination in pay and promotions at Walmart stores across America. They sought to represent approximately 1.5 million current and former female workers which would have made it one of the largest employment discrimination lawsuits in history if certified as a class action suit. However, the Supreme Court held that there was not enough commonality between all potential members for them to constitute a single class due to lack of evidence showing company-wide discriminatory practices or policies against women at Walmart's nationwide operations level; hence they could not proceed with their lawsuit as a group but only individually. The ruling emphasized that plaintiffs must show more than just statistical disparities among employees; rather specific proof is required demonstrating how decisions are taken regarding individual employees' pay and promotion opportunities.
In the dissenting opinion for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes et al., Justice Ginsburg disagreed with the majority's decision to disallow class certification in a gender discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart. She argued that there was sufficient evidence of company-wide discriminatory practices and policies to justify treating all female employees as a single class for legal purposes. According to her, the plaintiffs had provided ample anecdotal evidence of bias and statistical data showing pay and promotion disparities between male and female employees across different stores nationwide, which could be traced back to corporate culture and practices at Wal-Mart headquarters. Furthermore, she criticized the majority's interpretation of Rule 23(a) (commonality requirement for class actions), stating it set an unrealistically high bar that would make it nearly impossible for many legitimate claims of systemic discrimination or misconduct by large corporations to proceed as class actions.
