Jump to content

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores)

Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 29, 2011
Decided June 20, 2011
Full case nameWal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner v. Betty Dukes, et al.
Docket no.10-277
Citations564 U.S. 338 (more)
131 S. Ct. 2541; 180 L. Ed. 2d 374
Case history
PriorDistrict Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004); appeals court affirmed, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007), and affirmed en banc, 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010); cert. granted, 2010 WL 3358931.
Holding
Plaintiffs failed to show that their proposed class shares a common question of law or fact required under Rule 23(a). In addition, claims for monetary relief are not eligible for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityScalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts I and III)
Concur/dissentGinsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.[1]

The Court agreed to hear argument on whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(b)(2), which provides for class-actions if the defendant's actions make injunctive relief appropriate, can 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 but was only 5–4 on why so and whether the class could continue in a different form.

Background

[edit]

In 2000, Betty Dukes, a 54-year-old Walmart worker in California, claimed sex discrimination. Despite six years of work and positive performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher salaried position. Walmart argued that Dukes clashed with a female Walmart supervisor and was disciplined for admittedly returning late from lunch breaks.[3]

In June 2001, the lawsuit began in US District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs sought to represent 1.6 million women, including women who were currently working or who had previously worked in a Walmart store since December 26, 1998.[4]

Federal District Court

[edit]

In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).[5] Walmart appealed the decision.

Court of Appeals

[edit]

On February 6, 2007, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's class certification. Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority, which also included Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld dissented and criticized the majority's view of the class certification standards.[6]

Walmart promptly filed for a rehearing and a rehearing en banc, contending that the majority committed legal error with regard to whether the grounds for class action certification had been met.

On December 11, 2007, the same Ninth Circuit panel withdrew its initial opinion and issued a subsequent, superseding opinion, which still permitted the class certification.[7] The panel dismissed the original petition for rehearing as moot in light of its superseding opinion, on the grounds that the revised opinion addresses the legal errors claimed in the petition, but Walmart was permitted to refile its petition. Among other changes to its original opinion, the Ninth Circuit altered its opinion with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony and the use of Daubert challenges during a motion for class certification. Walmart again filed for a rehearing en banc.

On February 13, 2009, the Ninth Circuit granted Walmart's petition for rehearing en banc on the class action certification.[8] As a result, the December 2007 Ninth Circuit opinion was no longer effective.[9]

On March 24, 2009 a panel of eleven Ninth Circuit judges, led by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, heard oral arguments for the En Banc appeal.[10] On April 26, 2010, the en banc court affirmed the district court's class certification on a 6-5 vote, with Judge Michael Daly Hawkins writing for the majority and Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta writing for the dissent.[11]

Walmart's lead appellate counsel, Theodore Boutrous Jr., said in a statement that the decision violates "both due process and federal class action rules, contradicting numerous decisions of other federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court itself" and indicated that Walmart would appeal to the Supreme Court.[12] Plaintiffs' counsel argued that "Wal-Mart is attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court's employment discrimination class action jurisprudence [that] would require the Court to overrule 45 years of civil rights and class action precedent."[13]

Supreme Court decision

[edit]

On December 6, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Walmart's appeal as Wal-Mart v. Dukes.[14] Oral argument for the case occurred on March 29, 2011.[15][16]

On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart's favor by saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class.[17][18] The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability of plaintiffs' circumstances, the class action could not proceed as comprised.

The Court ruled 5–4 that it could not proceed as any kind of class action suit.[19] Critics of the opinion allege that the decision makes it incredibly difficult to certify a class without a prohibitive amount of work on the part of plaintiff attorneys. The requirement to look through the class to the merits requires an immense amount of discovery, which was not previously required.

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ AAUW Stands with the Women of Wal-Mart During U.S. Supreme Court Hearing Archived 2011-07-06 at the Wayback Machine, American Association of University Women.
  2. ^ 10-277 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, Questions Presented Archived 2017-01-31 at the Wayback Machine, Supreme Court of the United States.
  3. ^ Malanga, Steven. "The Tort Plague Hits Wal-Mart". City Journal. Archived from the original on April 21, 2009. Retrieved February 23, 2009.
  4. ^ "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Form 10-Q for the Quarterly Period Ended October 31, 2005". Archived from the original on July 7, 2017. Retrieved September 17, 2017.
  5. ^ "No. C 01-02252 MJJ. Order granting in part and denying in part motion for class certification" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California. June 21, 2004. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 27, 2012. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  6. ^ "Original opinion, February 2007" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 27, 2012. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  7. ^ Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007).
  8. ^ Gullo, Karen; Cronin Fisk, Margaret (February 14, 2009). "Wal-Mart Wins Request in Bias Case". Washington Post. p. D-2. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016.
  9. ^ "Order for Rehearing En Banc" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on March 26, 2009. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  10. ^ "(audio of the en banc hearing)". Archived from the original on March 19, 2012. Retrieved July 8, 2012.
  11. ^ Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010).
  12. ^ Tresa Baldas (April 26, 2010). "Wal-Mart yells 'Supreme Court' after 9th Circuit certifies largest civil class action ever". Law.com. Archived from the original on May 2, 2010. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
  13. ^ "Wal-Mart Sex Discrimination Class Action Plaintiffs Urge Supreme Court To Uphold Historic Civil Rights and Workers Laws in Brief Filed Today". District of Columbia: Prnewswire.com. February 22, 2011. Archived from the original on September 1, 2011. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
  14. ^ "Search - Supreme Court of the United States". Archived from the original on October 16, 2021. Retrieved December 4, 2021.
  15. ^ "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM 2010. For the Session Beginning March 21, 2011" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 6, 2017. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  16. ^ "Transcript: 10-277" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. March 29, 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on August 13, 2011. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
  17. ^ "SCOTUS decision, June 20, 2011" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on June 21, 2011. Retrieved June 27, 2017.
  18. ^ Daniel Fisher (June 20, 2011). "Supreme Court Dumps Wal-Mart Sex-Discrimination Class Action". Blogs.forbes.com. Archived from the original on July 23, 2011. Retrieved August 11, 2011.
  19. ^ Lennard, Natasha (June 20, 2011). "The Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart". Salon.com. Archived from the original on June 21, 2011.
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wal-Mart_Stores,_Inc._v._Dukes&oldid=1175152403"