Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
964 F. Supp. 2d 1115
N.D. Cal.2013Background
- Plaintiffs allege Wal-Mart discriminated against women in pay and promotions, initially pursuing a nationwide class of about 1.5 million.
- Supreme Court reversed the nationwide class certification for lack of a common question tying all members’ claims.
- Plaintiffs proposed a smaller California Regions class (roughly 150,000 women) seeking common questions across regional decisions.
- Court evaluates whether the revised class resolves the commonality deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court.
- Court analyzes disparate treatment and disparate impact theories, relying on Supreme Court guidance about common questions and pattern of discrimination.
- Court ultimately denies class certification, leaving claims to be pursued individually.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the California Regions meet Rule 23 commonality? | Dukes failed to foreclose common questions in smaller regions. | Revised class mirrors earlier failure; no common policy across regions. | Denied; no common question across regions. |
| Are the five proposed specific employment practices class-wide common questions? | Five practices tie promotions/pay decisions with common impact. | Evidence shows practices not uniform across class period or merely delegation of discretion. | Denied; practices either not class-wide or amount to discretionary delegation. |
| Do statistical analyses demonstrate a common policy of discrimination? | New analyses show pattern of disparities across regions and levels. | Results are not consistently statistically significant and do not establish a general policy. | Denied; statistics do not show significant proof of general policy across the class. |
| Do non-statistical anecdotes establish a general policy of discrimination? | Anecdotes reflect biases among top managers and support claims of common culture. | Anecdotes are too few and unrepresentative to prove a general policy. | Denied; anecdotes fail to show substantial common policy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) (rejected nationwide class for lack of common question; guides commonality analysis)
- Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 657 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 2011) (no common question if entire class not subject to same practice)
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (anecdotal evidence alone insufficient to prove discriminatory policy)
- Gay v. Waiters’ & Dairy Lunchmen’s Union, 694 F.2d 531 (9th Cir. 1982) (statistical demonstrations alone not dispositive for discrimination inference)