Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

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

11 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

tive] relief to the entire class.”  Ibid. 

B 
The  “dissimilarities”  approach  leads  the  Court  to  train
its attention on what distinguishes individual class mem-
bers, rather than on what unites them.  Given the lack of 
standards  for  pay  and  promotions,  the  majority  says, 
“demonstrating  the  invalidity  of  one  manager’s  use  of
discretion will do nothing to demonstrate the invalidity of 
another’s.”  Ante, at 15. 

Wal-Mart’s delegation of discretion over pay and promo-
tions  is  a  policy  uniform  throughout  all  stores.    The  very 
nature  of  discretion  is that  people  will  exercise  it  in  vari-
ous ways.  A system of delegated discretion, Watson held, 
is  a  practice  actionable  under  Title  VII  when  it  produces
discriminatory  outcomes.    487  U. S.,  at  990–991;  see  su-
pra,  at  7–8.  A  finding  that  Wal-Mart’s  pay  and  promo-
tions  practices  in  fact  violate  the  law  would  be  the  first
step in the usual order of proof for plaintiffs seeking indi-
vidual  remedies  for  company-wide  discrimination.    Team-
sters v. United States, 431 U. S. 324, 359 (1977); see Albe-
marle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 415–423 (1975).
That each individual employee’s unique circumstances will
ultimately determine whether she is entitled to backpay or 
damages, §2000e–5(g)(2)(A) (barring backpay if a plaintiff 
“was  refused  . . .  advancement  . . .  for  any  reason  other 
than  discrimination”),  should  not  factor  into  the  Rule 
23(a)(2) determination. 

* 

* 

* 

The  Court  errs  in  importing  a  “dissimilarities”  notion 
suited  to  Rule  23(b)(3)  into  the  Rule  23(a)  commonality 
I  therefore  cannot  join  Part  II  of  the  Court’s
inquiry. 
opinion.