Case brief summary
People suing together as a group must share real common questions a single trial can resolve for everyone. One type of class action only works when one court order could fix things for the whole group.
Facts
Three women who worked at Wal-Mart sued, saying managers' personal judgment on pay and promotions let gender bias harm women company wide. They wanted to represent 1.5 million women nationwide, seeking changed practices and back pay.
Procedural history
A trial court approved the class action, and the appeals court mostly agreed. Wal-Mart asked the Supreme Court to review the case, and the Court agreed.
Issue
Did the women share enough common questions to form one class, and could their back pay claims fit a class action type meant mainly for company wide orders?
Holding
The Supreme Court ruled the class should not have been approved. The women lacked a common question linking their claims, and back pay could not be included in this type of class action.
Reasoning
The Court said working for the same company isn't enough, there must be one shared policy causing the same harm. Wal-Mart let managers decide individually, which showed no uniform practice, and back pay needed individual proof.
Opinions
Majority (Scalia): The class lacked a common question tying 1.5 million claims together, and back pay could not be certified under this class action type because it needs individual proof.
Dissent (Ginsburg, joined by Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan): Agreed back pay was wrongly certified, but argued the women did show enough common questions about Wal-Mart's discretionary pay and promotion practices to meet the commonness requirement.