Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 39

8 

WAL-MART STORES, INC. v. DUKES 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

ployment practic[e]” subject to disparate-impact attack). 

The  plaintiffs’  allegations  state  claims  of  gender  dis-
crimination  in  the  form  of  biased  decisionmaking  in  both
pay  and  promotions.  The  evidence  reviewed  by  the  Dis-
trict  Court  adequately  demonstrated  that  resolving  those
claims  would  necessitate  examination  of  particular  poli-
cies and practices alleged to affect, adversely and globally,
women  employed  at  Wal-Mart’s  stores.  Rule  23(a)(2), 
setting a necessary but not a sufficient criterion for class-
action certification, demands nothing further. 

II 

A 

The Court gives no credence to the key dispute common 
to the class: whether Wal-Mart’s discretionary pay and pro-
motion  policies  are  discriminatory.    See  ante,  at  9  (“Re- 
citing”  questions  like  “Is  [giving  managers  discretion  over
pay]  an  unlawful  employment  practice?”  “is  not  suffi- 
cient  to  obtain  class  certification.”).    “What  matters,”  the 
Court  asserts,  “is  not  the  raising  of  common  ‘questions,’ ” 
but  whether  there  are  “[d]issimilarities  within  the  pro-
posed class” that “have the potential to impede the genera-
tion  of  common  answers.”  Ante,  at  9–10  (quoting  Na-
gareda, Class Certification in the Age of Aggregate Proof, 
84 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 97, 132 (2009); some internal quotation 
marks omitted). 

The  Court  blends  Rule  23(a)(2)’s  threshold  criterion
with  the  more  demanding  criteria  of  Rule  23(b)(3),  and
thereby  elevates  the  (a)(2)  inquiry  so  that  it  is  no  longer 
“easily  satisfied,”  5  J.  Moore  et al.,  Moore’s  Federal  Prac-
tice §23.23[2], p. 23–72 (3d ed. 2011).7  Rule 23(b)(3) certi-

—————— 

7 The  Court  places  considerable  weight  on  General  Telephone  Co.  of 
Southwest v. Falcon,  457  U. S.  147  (1982).   Ante,  at  12–13.    That  case 
has  little  relevance  to  the  question  before  the  Court  today.    The  lead 
plaintiff  in  Falcon  alleged  discrimination  evidenced  by  the  company’s 
failure  to  promote  him  and  other  Mexican-American  employees  and