Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
2011 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
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]
Wal-Mart v. Dukes | |
---|---|
Argued March 29, 2011 Decided June 20, 2011 | |
Full case name | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Petitioner v. Betty Dukes, et al. |
Docket no. | 10-277 |
Citations | 564 U.S. 338 (more) 131 S. Ct. 2541; 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 |
Case history | |
Prior | District 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 | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito; Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (Parts I and III) |
Concur/dissent | Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
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.