{"id":2571,"date":"2011-06-20T17:06:27","date_gmt":"2011-06-20T21:06:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/?p=2571"},"modified":"2016-11-16T20:43:48","modified_gmt":"2016-11-17T01:43:48","slug":"too-big-to-sue-supreme-court-dismisses-class-action-suit-against-wal-mart","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/too-big-to-sue-supreme-court-dismisses-class-action-suit-against-wal-mart\/","title":{"rendered":"Too Big to Sue: Supreme Court Dismisses Class Action Suit Against Wal-Mart"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The saga of <em>Wal-Mart v. Dukes<\/em>, the largest class-action discrimination lawsuit in history, came to a close todaywhen the Supreme Court ruled that <a href=\"http:\/\/today.msnbc.msn.com\/id\/43468398\/ns\/business-personal_finance\/\">the lawsuit could not proceed<\/a>.  The suit, brought on behalf of 1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees who faced discrimination in hiring or promotions, was dismissed because it failed to target a specific policy or common standard that connected the alleged discrimination at Wal-Mart&#8217;s 3,200 nationwide stores.<\/p>\n<p>Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, focused on the &#8220;commonality&#8221; requirement of Rule 23(a), saying that an employer could not be sued for thousands of adverse employment decisions nationwide &#8220;some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together.&#8221;  Parts I and III of Scalia&#8217;s opinion garnered unanimous 9-0 support.  However, Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor, strongly dissented against Part II of Scalia&#8217;s opinion.  While the majority considered and dismissed all theories for certifying the suit, Ginsburg&#8217;s dissent would have remanded the plaintiff&#8217;s alternative certification claim for further consideration in the lower courts.<\/p>\n<p>The full opinion is <a href=\"http:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/10pdf\/10-277.pdf\">available online at the Supreme Court&#8217;s website<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The saga of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the largest class-action discrimination lawsuit in history, came to a close todaywhen the Supreme [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2732,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_exactmetrics_skip_tracking":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_active":false,"_exactmetrics_sitenote_note":"","_exactmetrics_sitenote_category":0,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,44,41],"tags":[130,153,532,594],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-2571","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-amicus","category-courts","category-sex-equality","tag-class-action","tag-courts","tag-supreme-court","tag-wal-mart"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peZrWS-Ft","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2571","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2571"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2571\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2571"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2571"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2571"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/crcl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2571"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}