Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 10.0

6 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of the Court 

framework  analysis”  of  Wal-Mart’s  “culture”  and  person-
nel  practices,  and  concluded  that  the  company  was  “vul-
nerable”  to  gender  discrimination.    603  F.  3d  571,  601 
(CA9 2010) (en banc). 

Wal-Mart  unsuccessfully  moved  to  strike  much  of  this
evidence.  It also offered its own countervailing statistical
and other proof in an effort to defeat Rule 23(a)’s require-
ments  of  commonality,  typicality,  and  adequate  represen-
tation.  Wal-Mart  further  contended  that  respondents’ 
monetary  claims  for  backpay  could  not  be  certified  under 
Rule 23(b)(2), first because that Rule refers only to injunc-
tive  and  declaratory  relief,  and  second  because  the  back-
pay claims could not be manageably tried as a class with-
out  depriving  Wal-Mart  of  its  right  to  present  certain 
statutory defenses.  With one limitation not relevant here, 
the  District  Court  granted  respondents’  motion  and  certi-
fied their proposed class.3 

D 
A  divided  en  banc  Court  of  Appeals  substantially  af-
firmed  the  District  Court’s  certification  order.    603  F.  3d 
571.  The majority concluded that respondents’ evidence of 
commonality was sufficient to “raise the common question 
whether  Wal-Mart’s  female  employees  nationwide  were 
subjected to a single set of corporate policies (not merely a
number  of  independent  discriminatory  acts)  that  may 
have  worked  to  unlawfully  discriminate  against  them  in 
violation  of  Title  VII.”  Id.,  at  612  (emphasis  deleted).    It 
also agreed with the District Court that the named plain-
tiffs’ claims were sufficiently typical of the class as a whole 

—————— 

3 The  District  Court  excluded  backpay  claims  based  on  promotion 
opportunities that had not been publicly posted, for the reason that no
applicant data could exist for such positions.  222 F. R. D. 137, 182 (ND 
Cal.  2004).    It  also  decided  to  afford  class  members  notice  of  the  ac-
tion  and  the  right  to  opt-out  of  the  class  with  respect  to  respondents’
punitive-damages claim.  Id., at 173.