## Facts

- Current and former female employees sought to represent a nationwide class of women employed at domestic retail stores since December 26, 1998, alleging sex discrimination in pay and promotions under Title VII.
- Plaintiffs claimed local managers exercised broad discretion over compensation and promotions, and that this discretion produced company-wide disparities disadvantaging women.
- Plaintiffs offered statistical evidence of pay and promotion disparities, anecdotal accounts from employees, and expert testimony attributing disparities to a centralized corporate culture affecting discretionary decisions.
- The district court certified a class of roughly 1.5 million women under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive and declaratory relief and backpay.
- The Ninth Circuit (en banc) largely affirmed certification, including backpay under Rule 23(b)(2), while limiting punitive damages treatment.
- The Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

## Issues

1. Whether the proposed class satisfied Rule 23(a)(2) commonality where employment decisions were made through decentralized managerial discretion.
2. Whether claims for backpay and other individualized monetary relief may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), which is directed to injunctive or declaratory relief.

## Decision

- The Court reversed and decertified the nationwide class.
- The Court held Rule 23(a)(2) was not met because plaintiffs failed to show a common contention capable of classwide resolution generating a common answer to why each employee was allegedly disfavored.
- The Court held Rule 23(b)(2) does not permit certification when class members seek individualized monetary relief, and backpay claims required individualized determinations and employer defenses.
- The Court rejected the proposed “trial by formula” approach as inconsistent with Rule 23 and Title VII’s remedial structure, and remanded.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 23(a)(2) commonality requires more than a shared legal question; the class must share a common contention whose truth or falsity can be resolved for all members in a single determination that drives the litigation.
- A corporate policy of delegating discretion to local managers, without a showing of a uniform discriminatory mode of decisionmaking, does not supply the “glue” needed for commonality across many individualized decisions.
- Rule 23(b)(2) is limited to cases where a single injunction or declaratory judgment would provide relief to each class member; it is improper when individualized monetary awards are sought.
- Title VII backpay claims generally require individualized proceedings and an opportunity for the employer to raise defenses as to each claimant, which cannot be displaced by aggregate sampling and extrapolation.

## Conclusion

The Court made nationwide Title VII class certification harder where alleged discrimination stems from decentralized discretion, and it confined Rule 23(b)(2) classes to uniform injunctive or declaratory relief, excluding individualized backpay claims.


Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011)