| Wal-Mart v. Dukes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued March 29, 2011 Decided June 20, 2011 |
||||||
| Full case name | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes | |||||
| Docket nos. | 10-277 | |||||
| Citations | 564 U.S. ___ | |||||
| Prior history | District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004); appeals court affirmed, 509 F.3d 1168 (9C 2007), and affirmed en banc, 603 F.3d 571 (9C 2010); cert granted, 2010 WL 3358931. | |||||
| Argument | [March 29, 2011 Oral argument] | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| No right for class action | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
Wal-Mart v. Dukes is a United States Supreme Court case. The case is an appeal from the Ninth Circuit's decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in which that court, eventually by a narrow 6-5 decision, affirmed the district court's decision to certify a class action lawsuit in which the plaintiff class includes 1.6 million women who currently work or have worked for Wal-Mart stores, including lead plaintiff Betty Dukes. Dukes, a current Wal-Mart employee, and others have alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Wal-Mart stores.[1]
The Court agreed to hear argument on whether a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2) that provides for class-actions where the defendant's actions make injunctive relief appropriate can also be used to file a class-action that demands monetary damages. The Court also asked the parties to argue whether the class meets the traditional requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.[2]
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the class should not be certified in its current form, although they disagreed 5-4 on the reason and on allowing it to continue in a different form.