Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2010 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE NINTH CIRCUIT 

No. 10–277.  Argued March 29, 2011—Decided June 20, 2011 

Respondents,  current  or  former  employees  of  petitioner  Wal-Mart, 
sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory
relief, punitive damages, and backpay, on behalf of themselves and a
nationwide  class  of  some  1.5  million  female  employees,  because  of
Wal-Mart’s alleged discrimination against women in violation of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They claim that local managers
exercise  their  discretion  over  pay  and  promotions  disproportionately
in  favor  of  men,  which  has  an  unlawful  disparate  impact  on  female
employees;  and  that  Wal-Mart’s  refusal  to  cabin  its  managers’  au-
thority amounts to disparate treatment.  The District Court certified 
the  class,  finding  that  respondents  satisfied  Federal  Rule  of  Civil
Procedure 23(a), and Rule 23(b)(2)’s requirement of showing that “the 
party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that 
apply  generally  to  the  class,  so  that  final  injunctive  relief  or  corre-
sponding  declaratory  relief  is  appropriate  respecting  the  class  as  a 
whole.”  The  Ninth  Circuit  substantially  affirmed,  concluding,  inter 
alia,  that  respondents  met  Rule  23(a)(2)’s  commonality  requirement 
and  that  their  backpay  claims  could  be  certified  as  part  of  a  (b)(2) 
class  because  those  claims  did  not  predominate  over  the  declaratory
and  injunctive  relief  requests.    It  also  ruled  that  the  class  action 
could be manageably tried without depriving Wal-Mart of its right to 
present its statutory defenses if the District Court selected a random
set  of  claims  for  valuation  and  then  extrapolated  the  validity  and
value of the untested claims from the sample set. 

Held: 

1. The  certification  of  the  plaintiff  class  was  not  consistent  with

Rule 23(a).  Pp. 8–20.

(a) Rule  23(a)(2)  requires  a  party  seeking  class  certification  to