Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES

Docket No.: 10-277
Certiorari Granted: 12/06/10
Argued: March 29, 2011
Decided: 06/20/11

Topics:

Civil Procedure, Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Due Process, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IPO, Title VII, abuse of discretion, adverse employment action, disparate impact, disparate treatment, equitable relief, racial segregation, res judicata, retaliation, sex discrimination

PartyNames: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes, et al.
Petitioner: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Respondent: Betty Dukes, et al.

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Citation: 603 F.3d 571

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
v.
Betty Dukes, et al.
Background:

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.

Consideration Limited:

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)."

Question Presented:

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.

Question:

Can the small group of women who began the case represent a gigantic class of women?

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES
ORAL ARGUMENT

03/29/11

Listen to Oral Argument in WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES
Holding: reversed
Vote: 5-4
Opinion By:
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)