Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 37

6 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

trolled  for  factors  including,  inter  alia,  job  performance, 
length  of  time  with  the  company,  and  the  store  where  an
employee  worked.    Id.,  at  159.5    The  results,  the  District 
Court  found,  were  sufficient  to  raise  an  “inference  of  dis-
crimination.”  Id., at 155–160. 

C 
The District Court’s identification of a common question,
whether Wal-Mart’s pay and promotions policies gave rise 
to  unlawful  discrimination,  was  hardly  infirm.  The  prac-
tice  of  delegating  to  supervisors  large  discretion  to  make 
personnel decisions, uncontrolled by formal standards, has
long  been  known  to  have  the  potential  to  produce  dispa-
rate  effects.    Managers,  like  all  humankind,  may  be  prey 
to  biases  of  which  they  are  unaware.6    The  risk  of  dis-
crimination  is  heightened  when  those  managers  are  pre-
dominantly  of  one  sex,  and  are  steeped  in  a  corporate 
culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes. 

The  plaintiffs’  allegations  resemble  those  in  one  of  the 

—————— 

5 The  Court  asserts  that  Drogin  showed  only  average  differences  at
the  “regional  and  national  level”  between  male  and  female  employees. 
Ante, at 16 (internal quotation marks omitted).  In fact, his regression 
analyses  showed  there  were  disparities  within  stores.  The  majority’s
contention  to  the  contrary  reflects  only  an  arcane  disagreement  about 
statistical  method—which  the  District  Court  resolved  in  the  plaintiffs’ 
favor.    222  F. R. D.  137,  157  (ND  Cal.  2004).    Appellate  review  is  no
occasion  to  disturb  a  trial  court’s  handling  of  factual  disputes  of  this 
order. 

6 An example vividly illustrates how subjective decisionmaking can be 
a  vehicle  for  discrimination.    Performing  in  symphony  orchestras  was 
long  a  male  preserve.    Goldin  and  Rouse,  Orchestrating  Impartiality: 
The  Impact  of  “Blind”  Auditions  on  Female  Musicians,  90  Am.  Econ.
Rev. 715, 715–716 (2000).  In the 1970’s orchestras began hiring musi-
cians through auditions open to all comers.  Id., at 716.  Reviewers were 
to  judge  applicants  solely  on  their  musical  abilities,  yet  subconscious
bias led some reviewers to disfavor women.  Orchestras that permitted
reviewers  to  see  the  applicants  hired  far  fewer  female  musicians  than
orchestras  that  conducted  blind  auditions,  in  which  candidates  played
behind opaque screens.  Id., at 738.