Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 7

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e–1 et seq.1 

Betty  Dukes  began  working  at  a  Pittsburg,  California, 
Wal-Mart  in  1994.  She  started  as  a  cashier,  but  later 
sought and received a promotion to customer service man-
ager.  After  a  series  of  disciplinary  violations,  however,
Dukes  was  demoted  back  to  cashier  and  then  to  greeter.
Dukes concedes she violated company policy, but contends
that  the  disciplinary  actions  were  in  fact  retaliation  for
invoking  internal  complaint  procedures  and  that  male 
employees  have  not  been  disciplined  for  similar  infrac-
tions.  Dukes  also  claims  two  male  greeters  in  the  Pitts-
burg store are paid more than she is.

Christine  Kwapnoski  has  worked  at  Sam’s  Club  stores 
in Missouri and California for most of her adult life.  She 
has  held  a  number  of  positions,  including  a  supervisory 
position.  She  claims  that  a  male  manager  yelled  at  her 
frequently  and  screamed  at  female  employees,  but  not  at 
men.  The  manager  in  question  “told  her  to  ‘doll  up,’  to
wear  some  makeup,  and  to  dress  a  little  better.”    App. 
1003a. 

The  final  named  plaintiff,  Edith  Arana,  worked  at  a
Wal-Mart  store  in  Duarte,  California,  from  1995  to  2001. 
In 2000, she approached the store manager on more than 
one occasion about management training, but was brushed 
off.  Arana concluded she was being denied opportunity for 
advancement  because  of  her  sex.    She  initiated  internal 
complaint  procedures,  whereupon  she  was  told  to  apply 
directly  to  the  district  manager  if  she  thought  her  store 
manager  was  being  unfair.    Arana,  however,  decided 
against  that  and  never  applied  for  management  training 
again.  In  2001,  she  was  fired  for  failure  to  comply  with
Wal-Mart’s timekeeping policy.

These  plaintiffs,  respondents  here,  do  not  allege  that 

—————— 

1 The  complaint  included  seven  named  plaintiffs,  but  only  three  re-

main part of the certified class as narrowed by the Court of Appeals.