Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 41.0

10 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

larities” inquiry the Court endorses, developed his position
in  the  context  of  Rule  23(b)(3).    See  84  N. Y. U.  L. Rev., 
at  131  (Rule  23(b)(3)  requires  “some  decisive  degree  of 
similarity  across  the  proposed  class”  because  it  “speaks 
of  common  ‘questions’  that  ‘predominate’  over  individual
ones”).9    “The  Rule  23(b)(3)  predominance  inquiry”  is
meant  to  “tes[t]  whether  proposed  classes  are  sufficiently
cohesive  to  warrant  adjudication  by  representation.” 
Amchem  Products,  Inc.  v.  Windsor,  521  U. S.  591,  623 
(1997).  If courts must conduct a “dissimilarities” analysis 
at  the  Rule  23(a)(2)  stage,  no  mission  remains  for  Rule
23(b)(3).

Because  Rule  23(a)  is  also  a  prerequisite  for  Rule
23(b)(1) and Rule 23(b)(2) classes, the Court’s “dissimilari-
ties”  position  is  far  reaching.    Individual  differences 
should  not  bar  a  Rule  23(b)(1)  or  Rule  23(b)(2)  class,  so 
long  as  the  Rule  23(a)  threshold  is  met.  See  Amchem 
Products,  521  U. S.,  at  623,  n. 19  (Rule  23(b)(1)(B)  “does 
not  have  a  predominance  requirement”);  Yamasaki,  442 
U. S., at 701 (Rule 23(b)(2) action in which the Court noted 
that  “[i]t  is  unlikely  that  differences  in  the  factual  back-
ground  of  each  claim  will  affect  the  outcome  of  the  legal
issue”).  For  example,  in  Franks  v.  Bowman  Transp.  Co., 
424  U. S.  747  (1976),  a  Rule  23(b)(2)  class  of  African-
American truckdrivers complained that the defendant had 
discriminatorily  refused  to  hire  black  applicants.    We 
recognized  that  the  “qualification[s]  and  performance”  of 
individual class members might vary.  Id., at 772 (internal 
“Generalizations  concerning
quotation  marks  omitted). 
such  individually  applicable  evidence,”  we  cautioned, 
“cannot  serve  as  a  justification  for  the  denial  of  [injunc-

—————— 

9 Cf.  supra,  at  2  (Rule  23(a)  commonality  prerequisite  satisfied  by
“[e]ven  a  single  question  . . .  common  to  the  members  of  the  class”
(quoting Nagareda, The Preexistence Principle and the Structure of the
Class Action, 103 Colum. L. Rev. 149, 176, n. 110 (2003)).