Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc.

Citation509 F.3d 1168
Decision Date11 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. 04-16720.,No. 04-16688.,04-16688.,04-16720.
PartiesBetty DUKES; Patricia Surgeson; Cleo Page; Deborah Gunter; Karen Williamson; Christine Kwapnoski; Edith Arana, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WAL-MART, INC., Defendant-Appellant. Betty Dukes; Patricia Surgeson; Cleo Page; Deborah Gunter; Karen Williamson; Christine Kwapnoski; Edith Arana, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Wal-Mart, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)

Firth, Merit Bennett, Merit Bennett, P.C., Santa Fe, NM, (briefed) for the plaintiffs-appellees-cross appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-01-02252-MJJ.

Before: HARRY PREGERSON, ANDREW J. KLEINFELD, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge PREGERSONI Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

ORDER AND OPINION ORDER

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED.

The panel's Opinion and Dissent filed February 6, 2007, appearing at 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir.2007), are withdrawn. The new Opinion and Dissent are filed concurrently with this Order.

The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED as moot. The parties may file a new petition for rehearing or suggestion for rehearing en banc as provided for by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.

OPINION

PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart alleging sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court certified the class with minor modifications to Plaintiffs' proposed class. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court, concluding that it did not abuse its discretion when it certified the class.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, brought on behalf of six named plaintiffs and all others 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 instore management positions than men. Plaintiffs contend that Wal-Mart's strong, 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.

On April 28, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of women who have been subjected to Wal-Mart's allegedly discriminatory pay and promotions 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 — and is estimated to include more than 1.5 million women. The class seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, and punitive damages, but does not seek traditional "compensatory" damages.

Plaintiffs proposed that the district court certify the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 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. ("Dukes I"), 222 F.R.D. 137, 141-42 (N.D.Cal. 2004).

On September 23, 2003, 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, inasmuch as it concerns a class of approximately 1.5 million women who work or worked in one or more of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores in 41 regions at any time since 1998. The court acknowledged Wal-Mart's concerns but noted that, while the class size was large, the issues were not unusual.

I. DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS

On June 21, 2004, the district court issued an eighty-four-page order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. See Dukes I, 222 F.R.D. at 187-88. With respect to Plaintiffs' claims for equal pay, the district court granted Plaintiffs' motion as to issues of alleged discrimination and all forms of requested relief. With respect to Plaintiffs' promotion claim, the court's finding 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 proposed class with respect to the request for back pay because data relating to the challenged promotions were not available for all class members. Both parties appealed.

II. THE APPEAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), Wal-Mart appealed, contending that the district court 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, asserting that the district court erroneously limited the backpay relief for many of Plaintiffs' promotion claims.

DISCUSSION
I. STANDARD AND SCOPE OF REVIEW

We review a district court's decision regarding class certification for abuse of discretion. See Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 953 (9th Cir.2003). The district court's decision to certify a class is subject to "very limited" review and will 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) (citation omitted); see also 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.'" (citation 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.'" (citation omitted)); Doninger v. Pac. Nw. Bell, Inc., 564 F.2d 1304, 1309 (9th Cir.1997) ("[J]udgment of the trial court should be given the greatest respect and the broadest discretion" (citation omitted)). A court abuses its discretion if it applies an impermissible legal criterion. See Molski v. Gleich, 318 F.3d 937, 946 (9th Cir.2003). Moreover, the district court's factual findings as to the applicability of Rule 23 criteria are entitled to the traditional deference given to such determinations. See Local Joint Executive Trust Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, 244 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir.2001) (citation omitted).

Rule 23 provides district courts with broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit that certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court. See Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 872 n. 28 (9th Cir.2001). If later evidence disproves Plaintiffs' contentions that common issues predominate, the district court can at that stage modify or decertify the class, see Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) ("Even after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in light of subsequent developments in the litigation."), or use a variety of management devices to address the individualized issues that have arisen, see In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litig., 280 F.3d 124, 141 (2d Cir.2001); 1 Newberg on Class Actions § 4.26 at 4-91 to 4-97.1

Our review is limited to whether the district court correctly selected and applied Rule 23's criteria. See Bogus v. Am. Speech & Hearing Ass'n., 582 F.2d 277, 289 (3d Cir.1978); Waste Mgmt. Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray, 208 F.3d 288, 295 (1st Cir.2000) ("An abuse occurs when a court, in making a discretionary ruling, relies upon an improper factor, omits consideration of a factor entitled to substantial weight, or mulls the correct mix of factors but makes a clear error of judgment in assaying them."). Thus, if Plaintiffs demonstrate that they meet Rule 23's requirements, they should be allowed to pursue their action as a class. See Smilow v. Sw. Bell Mobile Sys., Inc., 323 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir.2003) ("There is even less reason to decertify a class where the possible existence of individual damages issues is a matter of conjecture.").

II. CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RULE 23

A district court may certify a class only if: "(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law and fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
88 cases
  • Howell v. Advantage RN, LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • 16 Agosto 2019
    ...Proc. 23(c)(1)(C) ; Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon , 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) ; Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc. , 509 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) )."Any amendment must, however, satisfy the requirements of Rule 23." Peel v. Brooksam. Mortg. Corp. , No. SACV110007......
  • Brown v. Nucor Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • 11 Mayo 2015
    ...to support that kind of proposition. “In the law, the absence of precedent is no recommendation.” Dukes v. Wal–Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1200 (9th Cir.2007) (Kleinfeld, J., dissenting). Moreover, to assume that a plaintiff establishes a right to class treatment for his discrete-act class m......
  • Stearns v. Select Comfort Retail Corp..
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • 21 Julio 2010
    ...the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a); see Dukes v. Wal–Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir.2007). If the plaintiff demonstrates that these four requirements have been satisfied, then he or she also must show “that ......
  • Hammer v. Clear Channel Commc'ns, Inc. (In re Live Concert Antitrust Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Central District of California
    • 23 Marzo 2012
    ...of plan for class notice, and further ordered that the action be stayed pending the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Dukes v. Wal–Mart, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir.2007). (Dkt. 215). On October 7, 2010, the Court granted Defendants' motion to lift the stay, denied Defendants' motion for recon......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • Wal-Mart v. Dukes Redux: The Future Of The Sprawling Class Action
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 9 Noviembre 2011
    ...19 at 600. See id. See Dukes, supra note 17 at 143. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2007); Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. See Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 556 F.3d 919 (9th Cir. 2009); Dukes, supra note 19. SeeWal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.Ct. 795 ......
  • Dukes V. Wal-Mart: Some Closed Doors And Open Issues - Part 2
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • 14 Febrero 2012
    ...Supreme Court resolves that important issue. Footnotes 1 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). 2 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). 3 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 4 Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2552 (emphasis in original). 5 457 U.S. 147 (1982). 6 Dukes, 131 S. Ct. at 2545 (quoting Falcon, 457 U.S. a......
9 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...re , MDL No. 1486 (N.D. Cal.), 127 Drelles v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 90 Fed. Appx. 587 (3d Cir. 2004), 87 Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) rev’d on other grounds 564 U.S. 338 (2011), 140 Dunson v. Cordis Corp., 854 F.3d 551 (9th Cir. 2017), 30 Dura Auto. Sys. of I......
  • The implications of psychological research related to unconscious discrimination and implicit bias in proving intentional discrimination.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 73 No. 1, January 2008
    • 1 Enero 2008
    ...Id. at 123-24. (129.) Id. at 124. (130.) Id. at 125. (131.) Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004), aff'd, 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007) (certifying a plaintiff (132.) Declaration of William T. Bielby, Ph.D in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification at......
  • Sex Discrimination
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Archive Texas Employment Law. Volume 1 - 2017 Part V. Discrimination in employment
    • 9 Agosto 2017
    ...discriminatory acts) that may have worked to unlawfully discriminate against them in violation of Title VII.” Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc. , 509 F.3d 1168, 1183 (9th Cir. 2007). Likewise, “[e]vidence of Wal-Mart’s subjective decision making policies provide further evidence of a common practice ......
  • Class Certification Procedure
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Antitrust Class Actions Handbook
    • 1 Enero 2018
    ...order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in light of subsequent developments in the litigation.”); Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 509 F.3d 1168, 1176 (9th Cir. 2007) rev’d on other grounds 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (“If later evidence disproves Plaintiffs’ contentions that common issues pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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