Explore BrainMass

Employment Law Analysis: Wal-Mart v. Dukes 2011

This solution addressed the following questions about the Wal-Mart v. Dukes (2011) case:

Do you agree with the decision/holding of the Court? Why, or why not?
What could the plaintiffs have done differently to have a better chance at getting their class action certified?
How would this have impacted employers (not just Wal-Mart) if the class action had been allowed to proceed?

Solution Preview

The decision of the Supreme Court was that the 1.5 million current and former female Wal-mart workers were not certifiable as a class due to failure for satisfying the commonality requirement. Rule 23(a)(2) "requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the class members have suffered the same injury" (Morrison & Foerster, 2011, ΒΆ 5). The Dukes argument was that female workers were discriminated against, based on their sex, in not receiving promotions. The argument could be made that the Court's decision was either fair or unfair, depending on one's interpretation of "same" injury. In my opinion, I do agree with the Court's ...

Solution Summary

This solution is about 300 words and includes a reference, analyzing Justice Scalia's opinion on whether the plaintiffs in this case were a "protected class" as defined by equal employment opportunity regulations.