Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes

Facts

Wal-Mart is the Nation's largest private employer. It operates approximately 3,400 stores and employs more than 1 million people. Pay and promotion decisions are generally committed to local managers' broad discretion, which they exercise in a largely subjective way. The three named plaintiffs who remained in the certified class were current or former female employees: Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana. They alleged that Wal-Mart discriminated against them because of sex in pay or promotions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They did not allege any express corporate policy against advancing women. They claimed instead that local managers' discretion is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, which they said caused a disparate impact on women and, because Wal-Mart knew of it, amounted to disparate treatment. Their theory was that a strong and uniform "corporate culture" lets bias infect the discretionary decisions of thousands of managers. They sought injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, but not compensatory damages. They asked to certify a class of all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store since December 26, 1998, about 1.5 million women. To show common questions, they relied on statistics about pay and promotion disparities, anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 female employees, and a sociologist, Dr. William Bielby, who concluded that the company was "vulnerable" to gender discrimination.

Issues

1. Did the plaintiffs show a common question under Rule 23(a)(2) among about 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees who challenged local managers' discretionary pay and promotion decisions?
2. May claims for individualized monetary relief, such as backpay, be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) when the money is not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief?
3. May a class be certified on a plan to try a sample of claims and extrapolate, so that Wal-Mart cannot litigate its statutory defenses to individual backpay claims?

Holding

The class was improperly certified. Respondents gave no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy, so they did not establish any common question under Rule 23(a)(2). Their backpay claims also could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), because that money was not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief.