Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Decision Date26 April 2010
Docket NumberNo. 04-16688,04-16720.,04-16688
Citation603 F.3d 571
PartiesBetty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Edith Arana; Karen Williamson; Deborah Gunter; Christine Kwapnoski; Cleo Page, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

603 F.3d 571

Betty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Edith Arana; Karen Williamson; Deborah Gunter; Christine Kwapnoski; Cleo Page, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant/Cross-Appellee.

Nos. 04-16688, 04-16720.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 24, 2009.

Filed April 26, 2010.


603 F.3d 572

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

603 F.3d 573

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

603 F.3d 574

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

603 F.3d 575

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

603 F.3d 576

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Los Angeles, CA, for the defendant/appellant/cross-appellee.

Brad Seligman, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, CA, for the plaintiffs/appellees/cross-appellants.

Joel E. Krischer, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, on behalf of amicus curiae Employers Group.

Rae T. Vann, Norris, Tysse, Lampley & Lakis, LLP, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council.

John H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Daniel J. Popeo, Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae Washington Legal Foundation.

Laura C. Fentonmiller, Constantine Cannon LLP, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae The Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Pamela Coukos, Mehri & Skalet, Washington, DC, on behalf of amici curiae The National Employment Lawyers Association, The National Partnership for Women & Families, and The National Women's Law Center.

Daniel B. Kohrman, AARP Foundation Litigation, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae AARP.

Bill Lann Lee, Lewis, Feinberg, Lee, Renaker & Jackson, P.C., Oakland, CA, on behalf of amici curiae Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, Center for Constitutional Rights, and Communities for a Better Environment.

Audrey J. Wiggins, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC, on behalf of amici curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern California, Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., National

603 F.3d 577
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Public Advocates, Inc. & Women Employed

David R. Bruce, Santa Rose, CA, on behalf of amicus curiae California Employment Law Council.

James M. Beck, Dechert LLP, Philadelphia, PA, on behalf of amicus curiae Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.

Mark Etheredge Burton, Hersh & Hersh, San Francisco, CA, on behalf of amicus curiae U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce.

Joe R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake & Kallas, New York, NY, on behalf of amicus curiae Public Justice, P.C.

Barbara L. Sloan, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of the General Counsel, Washington, DC, on behalf of amicus curiae Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Before: ALEX KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, STEPHEN REINHARDT, PAMELA ANN RYMER, HAWKINS, BARRY G. SILVERMAN, SUSAN P. GRABER, RAYMOND C. FISHER, RICHARD A. PAEZ, MARSHA S. BERZON, CARLOS T. BEA and SANDRA S. IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge HAWKINS; Concurrence by Judge GRABER; Dissent by Judge IKUTA; Dissent by Chief Judge KOZINSKI.

MICHAEL DALY HAWKINS, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart, Inc., discriminates against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. After detailed briefing and hearing, the district court certified a class encompassing all women employed by Wal-Mart at any time after December 26, 1998, and encompassing all Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay, while creating a separate opt-out class encompassing the same employees for punitive damages. We affirm1 the district court's certification of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class of current employees with respect to their claims for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and back pay. With respect to the claims for punitive damages, we remand so that the district court may consider whether to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). We also remand with respect to the claims of putative class members who no longer worked for Wal-Mart when the complaint was filed so that the district court may consider whether to certify an additional class or classes under Rule 23(b)(3).

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint,2 brought on behalf of certain named plaintiffs and those similarly situated, asserts claims against Wal-Mart for sex discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Plaintiffs allege that women employed in Wal-Mart stores: (1) are paid less than men in comparable positions, despite having higher performance ratings and greater seniority; and (2) receive fewer—and wait longer for—promotions to in-store management positions than men. Plaintiffs contend that Wal-Mart's strong,

603 F.3d 578
centralized structure fosters or facilitates gender stereotyping and discrimination, that the policies and practices underlying this discriminatory treatment are consistent throughout Wal-Mart stores, and that this discrimination is common to all women who work or have worked in Wal-Mart stores

Plaintiffs sought to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to these allegedly discriminatory pay and promotion policies. The proposed class consists of women employed in a range of Wal-Mart positions, from part-time entry-level hourly employees to salaried managers. The class seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, and punitive damages, but not traditional "compensatory" damages. Plaintiffs proposed that the district court certify the following class pursuant to Rule 23:

All women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998 who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices.

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137, 141-42(N.D.Cal.2004).

After the parties had conducted extensive discovery and filed copious briefs, the district court heard oral argument. At the hearing, Wal-Mart emphasized the "historic" nature of Plaintiffs' motion, including the size of the putative class, involving women employees at Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores in 41 regions. The court acknowledged Wal-Mart's concerns but noted that, while the class size was large, the issues were not unusual.3

DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

The district court issued an eighty-four-page order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. See id. at 187-88. With respect to Plaintiffs' claims for equal pay, the district court granted Plaintiffs' certification motion as to issues of alleged discrimination and all forms of requested relief. With respect to Plaintiffs' promotion claim, the court's holding was mixed. The court certified the proposed class with respect to issues of alleged discrimination (including liability for punitive damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief); however, the court rejected the pro posed class with respect to the request for back pay, determining that data relating to the challenged promotions were not available for all class members. The court also exercised its discretion to provide for notice and an opportunity for employees to opt-out of the punitive damages portion of the class.

THE APPEAL

Pursuant to Rule 23(f), Wal-Mart appealed, contending that the district court

603 F.3d 579
erred by: (1) concluding that the class met Rule 23(a)'s commonality and typicality requirements; (2) eliminating Wal-Mart's ability to respond to individual Plaintiff's claims; and (3) failing to recognize that Plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief predominated over their claims for injunctive or declaratory relief. Plaintiffs cross-appealed from the district court's limitation of back pay relief for many of Plaintiffs' promotion claims.

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

A district court's decision regarding class certification is not only reviewed for abuse of discretion, Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2003), but also subject to "very limited" review, to be reversed "only upon a strong showing that the district court's decision was a clear abuse of discretion," Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867(9th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Millowitz v. Citigroup Global Mkts., Inc. (In re Salomon Analyst Metromedia Litig.), 544 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir.2008) ("When reviewing a grant of class certification, we accord the district court noticeably more deference than when we review a denial of class certification."); Gonzales v. Free Speech Coal., 408 F.3d 613, 618 (9th Cir. 2005) ("Abuse of discretion is a highly deferential standard, under which the appellate court cannot substitute its view of what constitutes substantial justification for that of the district court; rather, the review is limited to assuring that the district court's determination has a basis in reason." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Blyden v. Mancusi, 186 F.3d 252, 269 (2d Cir.1999) ("A district court's decision to certify a class is reviewed for abuse of discretion, and `a reviewing court must exercise even greater deference when the district court has certified a class than when it has declined to do so.'" (quoting Marisol A. v. Giuliani, 126 F.3d 372, 375 (2d Cir.1997) (per curiam))); Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1309(9th Cir.1977) (stating that "the judgment of the trial court should be given the greatest respect and the broadest discretion" (internal quotation marks omitted)).

A court abuses its discretion if its decision is premised on legal error. Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1237 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, the district court's factual findings as to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
220 cases
  • Sabata v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • June 8, 2020
    ...They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit."Id. at 359-60, 131 S. Ct. at 2557 (quoting Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 652 (9th Cir. 2010) (dissenting opinion), rev'd, 564 U.S. 338, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 180 L. Ed. 2d 374 (2011)). Similarly to the issues presented by......
  • Kassman v. KPMG LLP
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • February 7, 2013
    ......Smith & Wollensky Rest. Grp., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 6198(LAK)(JCF), 2008 WL 161230, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 16, ..., relying primarily on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d ......
  • Jacobsen v. Allstate Ins. Co., DA 12–0130.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • October 8, 2013
    ...... noted the United States Supreme Court's admonition in Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, –––U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2551–52, ......
  • Brown v. Nucor Corp.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • May 11, 2015
    ...and female), subject to a variety of regional policies that all differed.” Id. at 2557 (quoting Dukes v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 652 (9th Cir.2010) (Kozinski, J., dissenting)). The scale and scope of the putative class, combined with the nature of the evidence offered, was thus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes Redux: The Future Of The Sprawling Class Action
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • November 9, 2011
    ...Inc., supra note 1 at *4; Dukes, supra note 17 at 141. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra note 1 at *5; Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 600 (9th Cir. 2010) (en SeeWal-Mart Stores, Inc., supra note 1 at *5; Dukes, supra note 19 at 600. See id. See Dukes, supra note 17 at 143. See......
  • A New Battleground In Class Actions: Rule 23(a)(2)'s Commonality Requirement
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 12, 2011
    ...evidentiary issues that could require a mini-trial. Footnotes 1 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). 2 See, e.g., Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 594 (9th Cir. 2010) (plaintiffs' burden under Rule 23(a)(2) is lower than that under Rule 23(b)(3); Williams v. Mohawk Indus. Inc., 568 F.3d 1350......
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Implications For Antitrust Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • July 14, 2011
    ...Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, and adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit noted, arguments in favor of a less rigorous analysis at the class certification stage were often based ......
  • Dukes V. Wal-Mart: Some Closed Doors And Open Issues - Part 2
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • February 14, 2012
    ...13 Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2557. 14 109 F.3d 1016, 1017 (5th Cir. 1997). 15 103 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 1996). 16 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571, 625-26 (9th Cir. 2010). 17 28 U.S.C. §1350. 18 Hilao, 103 F.3d at 782-84. 19 Dukes, 603 F.3d at 627. 20 Id. at 643, n.20. 21 Dukes, 131 S. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Collision Course: How Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Has Silently Undermined the Prohibition on American Pipe Tolling During Appeals of Class Certification Denials
    • United States
    • Louisiana Law Review No. 73-4, July 2013
    • July 1, 2013
    ...Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). 230. Id. at 2547. 231. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137, 188 (N.D. Cal 2004), aff’d , 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), rev’d , 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). 1214 LOUISIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 73 after Wal-Mart took a Rule 23(f) appeal. 232 ......
  • AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF CLASS-ACTION APPEALS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Vol. 22 No. 2, June 2022
    • June 22, 2022
    ...resolved in August 2014. (119.) See, e.g., Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (reviewing Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, 603 F.3d 571, 578 (9th Cir. 2010) (reviewing class certification after granting a Rule 23(f) petition to (120.) See generally Carroll, Class Action Myopia, supra not......
  • Traumatized Systems Theory: Accountability for Recurrent Systemic Harm.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 3, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 159 n.15 (1982)). (270.) Id. at 343. (271.) Id. at 346 (quoting Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc, 603 F.3d 571, 601 (9th Cir. 2010) (en (272.) Id. at 354 (quoting Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137, 152 (N.D. Cal. 2004)). (273.) Id. at 371 (Gin......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT