9th Circuit, Antonin Scalia, Gender, Labor / Employment, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, Ted Frank, Ted Olson, Wal-Mart, Women's Issues

Supreme Court Rejects Nationwide Class Action Against Wal-Mart

Wal-Mart: where you can save money and live better, except if you're a woman. Yesterday, SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, and held that class action certification should not have been granted in this case involving claims of pay and promotion discrimination against female employees.

By  
on

We just learned, via the SCOTUSblog liveblog of today’s proceedings at the Supreme Court, that Wal-Mart v. Dukes has been decided. Here is some background about the case, one of the most closely watched of this Term, and here is the opinion of the Court.

Justice Scalia wrote the opinion of the Court, which was joined in its entirety by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito. SCOTUS reversed the Ninth Circuit and held that class action certification should not have been granted in this case, brought on behalf of hundreds of thousands of female Wal-Mart employees who alleged a pattern and practice of pay and promotion discrimination by the giant retailer.

Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. What did RBG have to say?

Justice Ginsburg agreed that the class action certification in this case should not have been granted — indeed, the Court was unanimous on that score — but she would have ruled on a narrower ground than the majority. In Justice Ginsburg’s view, the class action “should not have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2),” but “[a] putative class of this type may be certifiable under Rule 23(b)(3).”

(You can read more analysis of the opinion from Josh Blackman, who is super-quick about digesting lengthy SCOTUS opinions.)

Congratulations to star litigator Ted Boutrous, who argued the case for longtime client Wal-Mart, and the rest of Boutrous’s team at Gibson Dunn, which included “the other Ted” — in this case, Ted Olson.

Sponsored

Speaking of guys named Ted, will this ruling make Ted Frank some money on his boatload of Wal-Mart options? Stay tuned.

UPDATE (6/21/11): Here is the outcome of Ted Frank’s Wal-Mart wager.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes [Supreme Court of the United States]
Wal-Mart v. Dukes [SCOTUSblog]
Instant Analysis: Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Josh Blackman]

Earlier: Dukes Proving To Be a Hazard to Wal-Mart
Can Legal Knowledge Help You Make Money in the Stock Market?

Sponsored

Topics

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,