Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 32.0

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

1 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 10–277 
_________________ 

WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER v.

BETTY DUKES ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

[June 20, 2011] 

JUSTICE  GINSBURG,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, concurring 
in part and dissenting in part. 

The class in this case, I agree with the Court, should not
have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 
23(b)(2).  The  plaintiffs,  alleging  discrimination  in  viola-
tion of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq., seek monetary 
relief  that  is  not  merely  incidental  to  any  injunctive  or
declaratory relief that might be available.  See ante, at 20– 
27.  A putative class of this type may be certifiable under
Rule 23(b)(3), if the plaintiffs show that common class ques- 
tions  “predominate”  over  issues  affecting  individuals— 
e.g., qualification for, and the amount of, backpay or com-
pensatory  damages—and  that  a  class  action  is  “superior” 
to other modes of adjudication.

Whether  the  class  the  plaintiffs  describe  meets  the 
specific  requirements  of  Rule  23(b)(3)  is  not  before  the
Court,  and  I  would  reserve  that  matter  for  consideration 
and decision on remand.1  The Court, however, disqualifies 
the  class  at  the  starting  gate,  holding  that  the  plaintiffs
cannot  cross  the  “commonality”  line  set  by  Rule  23(a)(2). 

—————— 

1 The plaintiffs requested Rule 23(b)(3) certification as an alternative,
should  their  request  for  (b)(2)  certification  fail.    Plaintiffs’  Motion  for 
Class Certification in No. 3:01–cv–02252–CRB (ND Cal.), Doc. 99, p. 47.