Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 AUGUST 2013

Plaintiffs Once Again Denied Class Certification In Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Proskauer Rose LLP
Proskauer Rose LLP
Contributor
Proskauer Rose LLP

Proskauer Rose LLP

Firm Overview Proskauer is an elite global law firm with more than 900 lawyers across key financial...

View firm profile
Explore more from Proskauer Rose LLP

In the latest chapter in what is now a twelve-year legal battle, plaintiffs seeking to bring gender-based disparate treatment and disparate impact claims against Wal-Mart with regard to the retail giant’s pay and promotion decisions were again denied class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 01-022520-CRB.

United StatesEmployment and HR

In the latest chapter in what is now a twelve-year legal battle, plaintiffs seeking to bring gender-based disparate treatment and disparate impact claims against Wal-Mart with regard to the retail giant's pay and promotion decisions were again denied class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. CV 01-022520-CRB (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013).  Following the United States Supreme Court's 2011 landmark ruling in which the Court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to point to a common question capable of resolution across the proposed nationwide class and thus failed to satisfy the commonality requirement of Federal Rule 23(a)(2) (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011)), plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint seeking to re-define a class of female employees working in Wal-Mart's "California Regions" that would conform to the Court's ruling.  The proposed re-defined class, however, was squarely rejected by District Judge Charles Breyer, who

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from