Alert
Close

Top the Trizzle leaderboard by 5 p.m. Friday to win a $100 gift card! Learn more

Highlights

Open
AARP Real Possibilities

 

FREE FUN!

AARP Games - Play Now!

Contests and
Sweeps

Safe Driving in 2014 Sweepstakes

Learn how AARP Driver Safety can help you stay safe—and enter for a chance to win $1,000. See official rules. 

Car buying made easy with the AARP Auto Buying Program

MOST POPULAR

Viewed

U.S. Supreme Court 2010-11

Dukes v. Wal-Mart: A Case About Class Actions

Can a suit involving 1.5 million employees proceed?

It’s the biggest employment discrimination lawsuit in American history, but for now the issue in Dukes v. Wal-Mart is whether the case can go forward as a class action on behalf of more than a million individuals. The nine-year-old case potentially involves more than 1.5 million female employees, current and former, of Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores. Wal-Mart argues that the women must file their claims individually or in smaller groups.

What’s at stake. The court’s decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, experts say, will almost certainly affect all class-action lawsuits that follow it, including age discrimination, consumer protection, and securities cases.

Where AARP stands: AARP, siding with the plaintiffs in the case, has argued that requiring them to seek individual hearings “would not only completely undermine the purpose of a class action, but also eviscerate the enforcement system designed by Congress to deter, remedy, and eventually eliminate employment discrimination.”

How the Court Ruled

In a decision issued on June 20, the Court ruled 5-4 that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart cannot go forward as a class action.

The plaintiffs had sought certification as a class under two different federal rules, and the Court was divided as to how those rules should be applied to the case.

The Court’s opinion (PDF), written by Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the first federal rule does not permit such lawsuits “when each individual class member would be entitled to a different injunction or declaratory judgment.”

The justices were split, however, on the question of whether the plaintiffs might qualify as a class under the second rule. Scalia, writing for the Court’s conservative majority, said the plaintiffs had failed to show that Wal-Mart “operated under a general policy of discrimination,” noting that the company’s announced policy forbids sex discrimination.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a partial dissent for the Court’s four liberal justices, wrote that there was enough evidence of “commonality” to send the case back to the lower court for consideration and said the majority’s decision wrongly “disqualifies the class at the starting gate.”

The court's decision, a big victory for Wal-Mart, will force the plaintiffs in the case to pursue discrimination claims individually.

Next: Is a company liable if a biased employee engineers a colleague's dismissal?

Topic Alerts

You can get weekly email alerts on the topics below. Just click “Follow.”

Manage Alerts

Processing

Please wait...

progress bar, please wait

Discounts & Benefits

From companies that meet the high standards of service and quality set by AARP.

Grandson (8-9) whispering to grandfather, close-up

Members save 20% on digital hearing aids with AARP® Hearing Care Program from HearUSA.

AARP Discounts on Consumer Cellular Phones and Plans

Members save 5% on monthly service and usage charges with Consumer Cellular.

Woman holding smartphone in city, Google map tool

Members can locate discounts via the AARP® Member Advantages Offer Finder mobile app.

Member Benefits

Join or renew today! Members receive exclusive member benefits & affect social change.