Wal-Mart v. Dukes

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
10-277	9th Cir.	Mar 29, 2011 Tr.Aud.	Jun 20, 2011	5-4	Scalia	OT 2010

Holding: The certification of the nationwide class of female employees was not consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a), which requires the party seeking class certification to prove that the class has common questions of law or fact; moreover, the plaintiffs' claims for backpay were improperly certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), because claims for monetary relief cannot be certified under that provision when the monetary relief is not incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief.

Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on June 20, 2011. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion as to Parts I and III. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, which Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Academic highlight: Gilles and Friedman on the future of class actions (Amanda Frost)
• Opinion analysis: Wal-Mart's two messages (Lyle Denniston)
• Last week at the Court in Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
• Argument recap: A fatal flaw detected? (Lyle Denniston)
• Academic round-up (Amanda Frost)
• Argument preview: Wal-Mart and workers' rights (Lyle Denniston)
• This week at the Court - In Plain English (Lisa McElroy)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs

• Brief Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Brief of Respondent Betty Dukes
• Reply Brief of Petitioner

Amicus Briefs

• Brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the California Employment Law Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Pacific Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Intel Corporation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Costco Wholesale Corporation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Association of Global Automakers, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the International Association of Defense Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Retail Litigation Center, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Society for Human Resource Management and the HR Policy Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Altria Group, Inc., Bank of America Corporation, Cigna Corporation, Del Monte Foods Company, Dole Food Company, Inc., Dollar General Corporation, Dupont Company, Fedex Corporation, General Electric Company, Hewlett-Packard Company, Kimberly-Clark Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, NYSE Euronext, Pepsico, Inc., Tyson Foods, Inc., United Health Group Incorporated, United Parcel Service, Inc., Walgreen Co., and the Williams Companies, Inc., in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for DRI-the Voice of the Defense Bar in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for Equal Employment Advisory Council in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Atlanta Legal Foundation and the New England Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Support of Petitioner
• Brief for the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and the California Women's Lawyers in Support of Respondent
• Brief for Labor Economists and Statisticians in Support of Respondent
• Brief of Law and Economic Professors in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the Institute for Women's Policy Research in Support of Respondent
• Brief of the National Employment Law Association, the Equal Justice Society, and the Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief of Public Citizen in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the American Sociological Association and the Law and Society Association in Support of Respondent
• Brief for the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations and Change in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Public Justice, P.C., the National Association of Consumer Advocates and the National Consumers League in Support of Respondents
• Brief for Civil Procedure Professors in Support of Respondents
• Brief for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, AARP, Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, Inc., Latino Justice PRLDEF, Asian American Justice Center, Asian Law Caucus, and Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Support of Respondents
• Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union and National Women's Law Center in Support of Respondent
• Brief of the American Association for Justice in Support of Respondent

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
• Brief in opposition (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of Intel (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the Defense Bar (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of Retail Litigation Center, Inc. (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of Altria Group et al. (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of the Equal Employment Advisory Council (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of Pacific Legal Foundation (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of Washington Legal Foundation (unavailable)
• Amicus brief of California Employment Law Council (unavailable)
• Petitioner's reply (unavailable)