Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 34.0

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

3 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

of  fact  or  of  law,  the  resolution  of  which  will  advance  the 
determination of the class members’ claims.3 

B 
The  District  Court,  recognizing  that  “one  significant  is-
sue common to the class may be sufficient to warrant cer-
tification,”  222  F. R. D.  137,  145  (ND  Cal.  2004),  found 
that the plaintiffs easily met that test.  Absent an error of 
law or an abuse of discretion, an appellate tribunal has no
warrant to upset the District Court’s finding of commonal-
ity.  See  Califano  v.  Yamasaki,  442  U. S.  682,  703  (1979) 
(“[M]ost  issues  arising under  Rule  23  . . .  [are]  committed 
in  the  first  instance  to  the  discretion  of  the  district 
court.”).

The  District  Court  certified  a  class  of  “[a]ll  women  em-
ployed  at  any  Wal-Mart  domestic  retail  store  at  any  time
since  December  26,  1998.”  222  F. R. D.,  at  141–143  (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted).  The  named  plaintiffs,
led  by  Betty  Dukes,  propose  to  litigate,  on  behalf  of  the 
class, allegations that Wal-Mart discriminates on the basis 
of  gender  in  pay  and  promotions.   They  allege  that  the
company  “[r]eli[es]  on  gender  stereotypes  in  making  em-
ployment  decisions  such  as  . . .  promotion[s]  [and]  pay.” 
App.  55a.  Wal-Mart  permits  those  prejudices  to  infect
personnel decisions, the plaintiffs contend, by leaving pay 
and promotions in the hands of “a nearly all male manage-
rial  workforce”  using  “arbitrary  and  subjective  criteria.” 
Ibid.  Further  alleged  barriers  to  the  advancement  of
female employees include the company’s requirement, “as 
a  condition  of  promotion  to  management  jobs,  that  em-

—————— 

3 The Court suggests Rule 23(a)(2) must mean more than it says.  See 
ante, at 8–10.  If the word “questions” were taken literally, the majority
asserts,  plaintiffs  could  pass  the  Rule  23(a)(2)  bar  by  “[r]eciting  . . . 
questions” like “Do all of us plaintiffs indeed work for Wal-Mart?”  Ante, 
at  9.  Sensibly  read,  however,  the  word  “questions”  means  disputed 
issues, not any utterance crafted in the grammatical form of a question.