Walmart, Inc. V. Dukes Summary
Wal-Mart, Inc v. Dukes
Issues:
Does the discretion exercised by Wal-Marts, local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violate title VII by discriminating against women?
Should the case be classified as a class action suit?
Rule:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination of employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.
Rule
23. Are there questions of law or facts common to the class?
Application:
The plaintiffs in the case do not claim that Wal-Mart has a corporate policy against advancement of women in the workplace, rather they claim that their local mangers’ discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, which leads to disparate impact on female employees. The plaintiffs believed that this type of discrimination is a common occurence against all female employees of Wal-Mart. Essentially they believed that there was a strong and uniform corporate culture that permitted bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discreationary decision making of Wal-Mart’s managers and therefore making every female employee a victim of one common discriminatory action. This is essentially what led the plaintiffs to believe that the should be classified as a class action suit on behalf of all women employed by Wal-Mart. In order to be classified as a class action there must be facts or questions common to everyone involved in the case.
Conclusion:
Supreme Court rejects the classification of Class Action. Rules in favor of Wal-Mart.
Issues:
Does the discretion exercised by Wal-Marts, local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violate title VII by discriminating against women?
Should the case be classified as a class action suit?
Rule:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination of employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[31]). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.
Rule
23. Are there questions of law or facts common to the class?
Application:
The plaintiffs in the case do not claim that Wal-Mart has a corporate policy against advancement of women in the workplace, rather they claim that their local mangers’ discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, which leads to disparate impact on female employees. The plaintiffs believed that this type of discrimination is a common occurence against all female employees of Wal-Mart. Essentially they believed that there was a strong and uniform corporate culture that permitted bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discreationary decision making of Wal-Mart’s managers and therefore making every female employee a victim of one common discriminatory action. This is essentially what led the plaintiffs to believe that the should be classified as a class action suit on behalf of all women employed by Wal-Mart. In order to be classified as a class action there must be facts or questions common to everyone involved in the case.
Conclusion:
Supreme Court rejects the classification of Class Action. Rules in favor of Wal-Mart.