Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Supreme Court of the United States · 2011 · Civil Procedure

Civil Procedureclass actionsRule 23commonalitycertificationRule 23(a)(2)Rule 23(b)(2)commonality

Facts

The plaintiffs were three current or former female Wal-Mart employees who alleged sex discrimination in pay and promotions under Title VII. They did not allege an express corporate policy against women, but instead argued that Wal-Mart's policy of allowing local supervisors broad discretion over pay and promotion decisions was exercised disproportionately in favor of men across the company. To show commonality, they relied chiefly on regional and national statistical evidence, about 120 anecdotal reports, and expert testimony that Wal-Mart's corporate culture was vulnerable to gender bias. The class sought injunctive and declaratory relief as well as backpay.

Issue

Whether a nationwide class of Wal-Mart female employees satisfied Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement based on Wal-Mart's discretionary pay and promotion system and the plaintiffs' statistical, anecdotal, and expert proof. Whether the plaintiffs' claims for backpay could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) along with claims for injunctive and declaratory relief.

Rule

Rule 23 does not set forth a mere pleading standard; the party seeking certification must affirmatively prove compliance through a rigorous analysis. For Rule 23(a)(2), commonality requires not merely common questions, but a common contention capable of classwide resolution such that its truth or falsity will resolve an issue central to the validity of each claim in one stroke. For Rule 23(b)(2), class certification is proper only when a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each class member; claims for individualized monetary relief, such as backpay requiring individual determinations, may not be certified under (b)(2) when they are not incidental to injunctive or declaratory relief.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Employees at Harbor Outfitters, a fictional apparel chain with stores across the United States, sue in federal court in Chicago alleging sex discrimination in promotions. The company has a written anti-discrimination policy, but promotion decisions are left largely to each store manager’s subjective judgment; the plaintiffs offer national promotion statistics, a consultant’s opinion that the company culture is "vulnerable" to bias, and 35 employee declarations from scattered stores.

Should the court most likely find Rule 23(a)(2) commonality satisfied for a nationwide class of female employees?

Explanation. Commonality requires more than common questions; plaintiffs must show a common contention whose truth or falsity will resolve a central issue for all class members in one stroke. A policy of delegating discretion to local managers is, by itself, the opposite of a uniform employment practice, and generalized culture testimony plus aggregated statistics and sparse anecdotes do not provide the needed "glue." The majority recognized that subjective decisionmaking can sometimes support Title VII liability, but not that it automatically supports classwide commonality. (Derived from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (2011).)