Today, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, reversing the Ninth Circuit’s certification of “one of the most expansive class actions ever.” The Court unanimously held that a class action for money damages could not be certified through the injunctive-class vehicle of Rule 23(b)(2). The Court also held that it violated Rule 23(a)(2)—the commonality requirement—to certify a class of 1.5 million female employees of Wal-Mart.
How will the Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes affect class action litigation in general and employment discrimination class actions in particular?
Please join Archis Parasharami, co-chair of Mayer Brown’s Consumer Litigation & Class Actions group; Marcia Goodman, co-chair of Mayer Brown’s Employment group; and Kevin Ranlett, a member of the firm’s Class Actions and Supreme Court & Appellate practices, for a discussion of the Dukes decision. Archis and Kevin filed an amicus brief in Dukes, and all three have previously written on the implications of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes.
Their discussion will focus on:
- Defendants’ potential arguments against class certification based on a lack of commonality, and expected responses from the plaintiffs’ bar
- The future of Rule 23(b)(2) injunction-only classes after Dukes
- The impact of Dukes on employment class actions and lessons for employers on handling employment decisions
Marcia E. Goodman
Archis A. Parasharami
Kevin S. Ranlett
Learn more about Mayer Brown's Consumer Litigation & Class Actions, Employment and Supreme Court & Appellate practice.