Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
- Decided
- June 20, 2011
- Docket
- 10-277
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 4,653 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the Rules Enabling Act precludes Rule from abridging, enlarging or modifying any substantive right — Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (2013)
- holding that “a class cannot be certified on the premise that [a defendant] will not be entitled to litigate its statutory defenses to individual claims” — Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc. (2013)
- holding that Rule 23(b)(2)"does not authorize class certification when each class member would be entitled to an individualized award of monetary damages" — In re Amla Litig. (2017)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
[*342] Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are presented with one of the most expansive class actions ever. The District Court and the Court of Appeals approved the certification of a class comprising about one and a half million plaintiffs, current and former female employees of petitioner Wal-Mart who allege that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violates Title VII by discriminating against women. In addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs seek an award of backpay. We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.