District Court granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification, 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004); appeals court affirmed, 509 F.3d1168 (9th Cir. 2007), and affirmed en banc, 603 F.3d571 (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).
Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts I and III)
Concur/dissent
Ginsburg, 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
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
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
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
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.
In law, an en banc session is a session in which a case is heard before all the judges of a court rather than by one judge or a smaller panel of judges. En banc review is used for unusually complex or important cases or when the court believes there is a particularly significant issue at stake.
The American multinational retail chain Walmart has been criticized by many groups and individuals, such as labor unions and small-town advocates, for its policies and business practices, and their effects. Criticisms include charges of racial and gender discrimination, foreign product sourcing, anti-competitive practices, treatment of product suppliers, environmental practices, the use of public subsidies, and its surveillance of its employees. The company has denied any wrongdoing and said that low prices are the result of efficiency.
Mary Margaret McKeown is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Diego. McKeown has served on the Ninth Circuit since her confirmation in 1998.
Marsha Lee Berzon is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
William Alan Fletcher is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Fletcher was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in 1998. Fletcher taught at the UC Berkeley School of Law from 1977 to 1998.
Ronald Murray Gould is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 1999.
Harry Pregerson was a United States circuit judge appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by President Jimmy Carter in 1979. Pregerson was regarded as one of the judiciary's most liberal judges, attracting both praise and criticism for his insistence on placing his conscience above court precedent.
Sandra Segal Ikuta is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Diarmuid Fionntain O'Scannlain is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. His chambers are located in Portland, Oregon.
Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was a sexual discrimination class action lawsuit filed on October 16, 2001, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking back pay and an injunction. The suit challenged Walmart's denial of health insurance coverage for prescription contraceptives. The case was granted class action status with an estimated 400,000 women eligible for participation in the lawsuit.
Andrew Jay Kleinfeld is an American lawyer and jurist serving as a senior United States federal judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit since 2010. He served as an active judge on the Ninth Circuit from 1991 to 2010. Kleinfeld was previously a United States district judge on the United States District Court for the District of Alaska from 1986 to 1991.
Nordyke v. King was a case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which a ban of firearms on all public property and whether the Second Amendment should be applied to the state and local governments is to be decided. After several hearings at different levels of the federal court system, Alameda County, California promised that gun shows could be held on county property, essentially repudiating its ordinance.
Established in 1977, Atlantic Legal Foundation, also known as ALF, is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, nonpartisan public interest law firm that litigates individual liberty, deregulation, free enterprise, and private property rights. The foundation was started to pursue a “deep commitment to redressing the bias against business which manifests itself in favor of narrow ‘consumer’ or ‘environmental’ concerns.” ALF has argued against environmental and worker regulations promulgated by federal agencies and works to promote “school-choice”. Atlantic Legal provides legal representation, without fee, to certain individuals, corporations, trade associations, parents, scientists, and educators.
Doe v. Unocal, 395 F.3d 932, opinion vacated and rehearing en banc granted, 395 F.3d 978, was a lawsuit filed against Unocal for alleged human rights violations.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. 297 (2013), also known as Fisher I, is a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the university and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling in Fisher took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions.
Sevcik v. Sandoval is the lead case that successfully challenged Nevada's denial of same-sex marriage as mandated by that state's constitution and statutory law. The plaintiffs' complaint was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on April 10, 2012, on behalf of several couples denied marriage licenses. These couples challenged the denial on the basis of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
Latta v. Otter is a case initiated in 2013 in U.S. federal court by plaintiffs seeking to prevent the state of Idaho from enforcing its ban on same-sex marriage. The plaintiffs won in U.S. District Court. The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard this together with two related cases–Jackson v. Abercrombie, and Sevcik v. Sandoval.
Fisher v. University of Texas, 579 U.S. 365 (2016) is a United States Supreme Court case which held that the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit correctly found that the University of Texas at Austin's undergraduate admissions policy survived strict scrutiny, in accordance with Fisher v. University of Texas (2013), which ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to determine the constitutionality of the University's race-conscious admissions policy.
Kimberly Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, 853 F.3d 339, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ruling made the Seventh Circuit the first federal appeals court to find that sexual orientation is a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
