Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 40.0

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

9 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

fication requires, in addition to the four 23(a) findings, de-
terminations  that  “questions  of  law  or  fact  common  to 
class  members  predominate  over  any  questions  affecting 
only individual members” and that “a class action is supe-
rior  to  other  available  methods  for  . . .  adjudicating  the 
controversy.”8 

The  Court’s  emphasis  on  differences  between  class 
members  mimics  the  Rule  23(b)(3)  inquiry  into  whether 
common  questions  “predominate”  over  individual  issues. 
And by asking whether the individual differences “impede”
common  adjudication,  ante,  at  10  (internal  quotation
marks  omitted),  the  Court  duplicates  23(b)(3)’s  question
whether  “a  class  action  is  superior”  to  other  modes  of 
adjudication.  Indeed, Professor Nagareda, whose “dissimi-

—————— 

failure to hire Mexican-American applicants.  There were “no common 
questions of law or fact” between the claims of the lead plaintiff and the
applicant class.  457 U. S., at 162 (Burger, C. J., concurring in part and
dissenting  in  part)  (emphasis  added).    The  plaintiff-employee  alleged
that  the  defendant-employer  had  discriminated  against  him  intention-
ally.  The applicant class claims, by contrast, were “advanced under the 
‘adverse  impact’  theory,”  ibid.,  appropriate  for  facially  neutral  prac-
tices.    “[T]he  only  commonality  [wa]s  that  respondent  is  a  Mexican-
American  and  he  seeks  to  represent  a  class  of  Mexican-Americans.” 
Ibid.  Here  the  same  practices  touch  and  concern  all  members  of  the 
class. 

8 “A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: 
“(1) prosecuting separate actions by or against individual class mem-
bers would create a risk of . . . inconsistent or varying adjudications . . . 
[or]  adjudications  with  respect  to  individual  class  members  that,  as  a
practical  matter,  would  be  dispositive  of  the  interests  of  the  other 
members . . . ; 

“(2)  the  party  opposing  the  class  has  acted  or  refused  to  act  on
grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief 
. . . is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or

“(3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class
members  predominate  over  any  questions  affecting  only  individual
members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods 
for  fairly  and efficiently  adjudicating  the  controversy.”  Fed.  Rule  Civ. 
Proc. 23(b) (paragraph breaks added).