Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10–277.

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtJustice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.
Citation180 L.Ed.2d 374,131 S.Ct. 2541,564 U.S. 338
Parties WAL–MART STORES, INC., Petitioner, v. DUKES et al.
Decision Date20 June 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–277.

564 U.S. 338
131 S.Ct.
2541
180 L.Ed.2d 374

WAL–MART STORES, INC., Petitioner,
v.
DUKES et al.

No. 10–277.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 29, 2011.
Decided June 20, 2011.


Theodore B. Olson, Mark A. Perry, Amir C. Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Counsel of Record, Rachel S. Brass, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber, Jenny R. Yang, Kalpana Kotagal, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C., Brad Seligman, Jocelyn D. Larkin, The Impact Fund, Berkeley, CA, Steven Stemerman, Elizabeth A. Lawrence, Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Arcelia Hurtado, Noreen Farell, Equal Rights Advocates, San Francisco, CA, Sheila Y. Thomas, Law Office of Sheila Thomas, Oakland, CA, Stephen Tinkler, The Tinkler Law Firm, Santa Fe, NM, Merit Bennett, The Bennett Firm, Santa Fe, NM, Debra Gardner, Baltimore, MD, Shauna Marshall, Hastings College of the Law, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents.

Theodore B. Olson, Mark A. Perry, Amir C. Tayrani, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington, D.C., Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Counsel of Record, Rachel S. Brass, Theane Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner.

131 S.Ct. 2547

Justice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court.

564 U.S. 342

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

A

Petitioner Wal–Mart is the Nation's largest private employer. It operates four types of retail stores throughout the country: Discount Stores, Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets, and Sam's Clubs. Those stores are divided into seven nationwide divisions, which in turn comprise 41 regions of 80 to 85 stores apiece. Each store has between 40 and 53 separate departments and 80 to 500 staff positions. In all, Wal–Mart operates approximately 3,400 stores and employs more than one million people.

564 U.S. 343

Pay and promotion decisions at Wal–Mart are generally committed to local managers' broad discretion, which is exercised "in a largely subjective manner." 222 F.R.D. 137, 145 (N.D.Cal.2004). Local store managers may increase the wages of hourly employees (within limits) with only limited corporate oversight. As for salaried employees, such as store managers and their deputies, higher corporate authorities have discretion to set their pay within preestablished ranges.

Promotions work in a similar fashion. Wal–Mart permits store managers to apply their own subjective criteria when selecting candidates as "support managers," which is the first step on the path to management. Admission to Wal–Mart's management training program, however, does require that a candidate meet certain objective criteria, including an above-average performance rating, at least one year's tenure in the applicant's current position, and a willingness to relocate. But except for those requirements, regional and district managers have discretion to use their own judgment when selecting candidates for management training. Promotion to higher office—e.g., assistant manager, co-manager, or store manager—is similarly at the discretion of the employee's superiors after prescribed objective factors are satisfied.

B

The named plaintiffs in this lawsuit, representing the 1.5 million members of the certified class, are three current or former Wal–Mart employees who allege that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their sex by denying them equal pay or promotions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–1 et seq. 1

564 U.S. 344

Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburgh, California, Wal–Mart in 1994. She started as a cashier, but later sought and

131 S.Ct. 2548

received a promotion to customer service manager. After a series of disciplinary violations, however, Dukes was demoted back to cashier and then to greeter. Dukes concedes she violated company policy, but contends that the disciplinary actions were in fact retaliation for invoking internal complaint procedures and that male employees have not been disciplined for similar infractions. Dukes also claims two male greeters in the Pittsburgh store are paid more than she is.

Christine Kwapnoski has worked at Sam's Club stores in Missouri and California for most of her adult life. She has held a number of positions, including a supervisory position. She claims that a male manager yelled at her frequently and screamed at female employees, but not at men. The manager in question "told her to ‘doll up,’ to wear some makeup, and to dress a little better." App. 1003a.

The final named plaintiff, Edith Arana, worked at a Wal–Mart store in Duarte, California, from 1995 to 2001. In 2000, she approached the store manager on more than one occasion about management training, but was brushed off. Arana concluded she was being denied opportunity for advancement because of her sex. She initiated internal complaint procedures, whereupon she was told to apply directly to the district manager if she thought her store manager was being unfair. Arana, however, decided against that and never applied for management training again. In 2001, she was fired for failure to comply with Wal–Mart's timekeeping policy.

These plaintiffs, respondents here, do not allege that Wal–Mart has any express corporate policy against the advancement of women. Rather, they claim that their local managers' discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an unlawful disparate impact on female employees, see

564 U.S. 345

42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(k). And, respondents say, because Wal–Mart is aware of this effect, its refusal to cabin its managers' authority amounts to disparate treatment, see § 2000e–2(a). Their complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay. It does not ask for compensatory damages.

Importantly for our purposes, respondents claim that the discrimination to which they have been subjected is common to all Wal–Mart's female employees. The basic theory of their case is that a strong and uniform "corporate culture" permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of Wal–Mart's thousands of managers—thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice. Respondents therefore wish to litigate the Title VII claims of all female employees at Wal–Mart's stores in a nationwide class action.

C

Class certification is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Under Rule 23(a), the party seeking certification must demonstrate, first, that:

"(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

"(2) there are questions of law or 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 the class" (paragraph breaks added).

Second, the proposed class must satisfy at least one of the three requirements listed in Rule 23(b). Respondents rely on Rule 23(b)(2), which applies when "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to

131 S.Ct. 2549

act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding

564 U.S. 346

declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."2

Invoking these provisions, respondents moved the District Court to certify a plaintiff class consisting of " ‘[a]ll 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.’ " 222 F.R.D., at 141–142 (quoting Plaintiff ‘s Motion for Class Certification in case No. 3:01–cv–02252–CRB (ND Cal.), Doc. 99, p. 37). As evidence that there were indeed "questions of law or fact common to" all the women of Wal–Mart, as Rule 23(a)(2) requires, respondents relied chiefly on three forms of proof: statistical evidence about pay and promotion disparities between men and women at the company, anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 of Wal–Mart's female employees, and the testimony of a sociologist,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5765 practice notes
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ...rule and its requirement that the district court conduct a "rigorous analysis" before certifying a class. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 351, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon , 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1......
  • Steven J. Abraham, & H Ltd. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, No. CIV 12-0917 JB/CG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 30, 2017
    ...order to resolve preliminary matters, e.g., jurisdiction and venue, is a familiar feature of litigation.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551-52 (2011)(Scalia, J.)("Wal-Mart.") In a subsequent, seemingly contradictory admonition, however, the Supreme Court cautioned district......
  • Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp.., No. 10–3178.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 31, 2011
    ...(b)(2) are “mandatory” class actions in that class members are not permitted to opt out. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2558, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). 11. As noted, the Portal–to–Portal Act notionally abolished “representative actions.” See Pub.L. No. 80–49, §......
  • Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc., Case No. 16-CV-3348 (NEB/LIB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • March 31, 2020
    ...Stuart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 910 F.3d 371, 374 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting 450 F.Supp.3d 980 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) ).Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Class Vehicles from Octob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5767 cases
  • Covenant v. Barr, Nos. 19-16487
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • July 6, 2020
    ...rule and its requirement that the district court conduct a "rigorous analysis" before certifying a class. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 351, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon , 457 U.S. 147, 161, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1......
  • Steven J. Abraham, & H Ltd. v. WPX Energy Prod., LLC, No. CIV 12-0917 JB/CG
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • September 30, 2017
    ...order to resolve preliminary matters, e.g., jurisdiction and venue, is a familiar feature of litigation.Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551-52 (2011)(Scalia, J.)("Wal-Mart.") In a subsequent, seemingly contradictory admonition, however, the Supreme Court cautioned district......
  • Symczyk v. Genesis Healthcare Corp.., No. 10–3178.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • August 31, 2011
    ...(b)(2) are “mandatory” class actions in that class members are not permitted to opt out. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 2558, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011). 11. As noted, the Portal–to–Portal Act notionally abolished “representative actions.” See Pub.L. No. 80–49, §......
  • Johannessohn v. Polaris Indus., Inc., Case No. 16-CV-3348 (NEB/LIB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • March 31, 2020
    ...Stuart v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. , 910 F.3d 371, 374 (8th Cir. 2018) (quoting 450 F.Supp.3d 980 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes , 564 U.S. 338, 350, 131 S.Ct. 2541, 180 L.Ed.2d 374 (2011) ).Plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Class Vehicles from Octob......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 firm's commentaries
  • A Pandemic Of Litigation: Prisons And COVID-19 Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 9, 2022
    ...certification has the capacity to "generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349-50 (2011). At FCC Butner, the proposed class members are all subject to the exact same living conditions and policies, and all face a ......
  • A Pandemic Of Litigation: Prisons And COVID-19 Class Actions
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • March 9, 2022
    ...certification has the capacity to "generate common answers apt to drive the resolution of the litigation." Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349-50 (2011). At FCC Butner, the proposed class members are all subject to the exact same living conditions and policies, and all face a ......
  • Federal Court Extinguishes Firefighters’ Class Action Claims In Race Discrimination Lawsuit
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 20, 2022
    ...Hispanic firefighters met the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1); and (2) that the seminal ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011), barred certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class as sought by Plaintiffs. This ruling is well worth a read by employers, and will ......
  • Federal Court Extinguishes Firefighters’ Class Action Claims In Race Discrimination Lawsuit
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • July 20, 2022
    ...Hispanic firefighters met the numerosity requirement of Rule 23(a)(1); and (2) that the seminal ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 349 (2011), barred certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class as sought by Plaintiffs. This ruling is well worth a read by employers, and will ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
27 books & journal articles
  • Using Issue Certification Against a Defendant Class to Establish Causation in Climate Change Litigtion
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 52-4, April 2022
    • April 1, 2022
    ...defendants’ conduct as it relates to the plaintif’s claims.154 148. Heede, supra note 34. 149. Wright & Miller, supra note 84, §1763. 150. 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). 151. Id . at 369 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). 152. Id . at 350 (quoting Richard A. Nagareda, Class Certiication in the Age of A......
  • Sex Discrimination Claims Under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law Nbr. XXII-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...plans that provide 130. Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 360 (1977); cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S 338, 349-50 (2011) (“Commonality [a requirement for class certif‌ication] requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered......
  • Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Vol. 131 Nbr. 1, October 2021
    • October 1, 2021
    ...been met "will frequently entail 'overlap with the merits of the plaintiff's underlying claim'" (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 351 (2011)); Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc., 573 U.S. 258, 282-83 (2014) (holding that a securities fraud defendant may seek to......
  • GROUPS AND RIGHTS IN INSTITUTIONAL REFORM LITIGATION.
    • United States
    • Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 97 Nbr. 2, January 2022
    • January 1, 2022
    ...54 RUTGERS L. REV. 1,111 (2001). (71) Lewis, 518 U.S. at 349-51. (72) FED. R. CIv. P. 23(a)(2). (73) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338,350-51 (2011) (quoting Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 161 (74) M.D. ex rel. Stukenberg v. Perry, No. C-l 1-84, 2011 WL 2173673......
  • 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