Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
131 S. Ct. 2541
| SCOTUS | 2011Background
- Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest private employer with ~3,400 stores and >1 million employees across multiple store formats and regions.
- Pay and promotion decisions are delegated to local managers with broad, largely subjective discretion; only limited corporate oversight exists for wages and some salaried positions.
- Named plaintiffs represent ~1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees and allege nationwide discrimination in pay and promotions under Title VII.
- Plaintiffs seek injunctive/declaratory relief and backpay; no compensatory damages are sought.
- Plaintiffs propose a nationwide class under Rule 23 with common questions alleged to arise from Wal-Mart’s corporate culture and discretionary decisionmaking.
- Lower courts certified the class, including backpay under Rule 23(b)(2); on appeal, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed with modifications regarding scope and manageability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commonality under Rule 23(a)(2) | Dukes asserts a common policy of discrimination from Wal‑Mart’s culture. | Wal‑Mart argues discretion varies by store and lacks a uniform policy; disparate outcomes do not prove a common question. | Not met; no common policy showing that all class members’ claims share a single legal or factual question. |
| Rule 23(b)(2) and backpay | Backpay constitutes class relief aligned with injunctive/declaratory relief. | Monetary backpay claims cannot be certified under (b)(2) or must be incidental to injunctive relief. | Backpay must not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2); individualized monetary claims require Rule 23(b)(3) procedures. |
| Evidence of discrimination and class cohesion | Statistical and anecdotal evidence demonstrates a companywide discriminatory effect. | Evidence shows dissimilar store-level practices; no single employment practice ties all claims. | Evidence insufficient to show a companywide common practice; dissimilarities defeat classwide resolution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falcon v. General Telephone Co. of Southwest, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (commonality requires a common policy or practice; lack of tying policy defeats class)
- Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (pattern-or-practice theory; need for substantial proof of general discrimination)
- Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) (discretionary decisionmaking may be analyzed under disparate impact)
- Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U.S. 642 (1989) (disparate-impact framework; importance of specific employment practices)
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997) (structure of Rule 23(b); limitations on combining individualized relief with classwide relief)
- Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815 (1999) (test for class actions; use of rule interpretation in complex cases)
- Franks v. Bowman Transp. Co., 424 U.S. 747 (1976) (illustrates Rule 23(b)(2) considerations; individualized issues in class actions)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (due process concerns in nationwide class actions; notice/opt-out relevance)
- Leisner v. New York Tel. Co., 358 F. Supp. 359 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) (illustrates discretion and totality of decisionmaking in promotions)