Opinion ID: 2814810
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the reasons explained above, we hold, under In re Vertrue, that Andrews does not bar the Wal-Mart Region 43 Rule 23(b)(3) putative class action brought by the named plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of all former female Wal-Mart employees. Their action was timely filed under American Pipe, and no court has ever ruled on whether certification of the Rule 23(b)(3) class is appropriate. We further hold that Andrews does not bar the Wal-Mart Region 43 Rule 23(b)(2) putative class brought by plaintiffs for themselves and on behalf of all current female employees of Wal-Mart. Andrews barred a follow-on class action because it was filed months after the statute of limitations applicable to the named plaintiffs’ individual claims had run. By contrast, plaintiffs timely filed the Rule 23(b)(2) class action under American Pipe. Further, the Rule 23(b)(2) putative class may proceed under Smith and Shady Grove if the necessary class action prerequisites specified in Rule 23 are met. Accordingly, we REVERSE the order of the district court dismissing the class claims with prejudice and we REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. No. 13-6194 Phipps, et al. v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Page 22 _____________________________________________________ CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART _____________________________________________________