978-0078023859 Case4_2

subject Type Homework Help
subject Pages 2
subject Words 444
subject Authors Daniel Cahoy, Marisa Pagnattaro

Unlock document.

This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
page-pf1
Case 4.2
WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES
Supreme Court of the United States
131 S. Ct. 2541; 180 L. Ed. 2d 374; 2011 U.S. LEXIS 4567 [June 20, 2011]
FACTS:
In a class action lawsuit, respondents (current or former employees of Wal-Mart), sought injunctive
and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and back pay against Wal-Mart, on behalf of themselves
and 1.5 million female employees based on a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Wal-Mart is the Nation’s largest private employer. It operates 3,400 stores and employs more than
one million people.
Pay and promotion decisions at Wal-Mart are generally committed to local managers’ broad
discretion which is exercised in a subjective manner.
Local store managers may increase the wages of hourly employees (within limits) with little
oversight.
Wal-Mart allows store managers to use subjective criteria when selecting candidates for
promotion.
Admission to Wal-Mart’s management training program requires: an above average performance
rating, at least 1 year in the current position, and a willingness to relocate.
Except for the above requirements, regional and district managers have discretion to use their own
judgment when selecting candidates for management training.
The Plaintiffs/Respondents claim the local managers’ discretion over pay and promotion is
exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an unlawful disparate impact on female
employees.
PROCEDURE: The District Court certified the class action and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE: Does the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart meet the commonality requirements to be
properly certified?
RULE: “An essential element to establish ‘commonality’ is the requirement that the plaintiff show that
there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”
REASONING:
1. There is no “significant proof” that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination.
store.
page-pf2
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The Court of Appeals’ judgment was reversed in a 5-4 decision.
Wal-Mart operates four types of retail stores throughout the country: Discount Stores,

Trusted by Thousands of
Students

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.