The US Supreme Court holds that a claim for monetary relief shall not be certified under Federal Class Actions Rule, if it is not secondary to obtaining an injunction or declaration (Wal-Mart Stores / Dukes)

Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Implications For Antitrust Class Actions* On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277, holding that 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees around the nation could not bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Wal-Mart on a classwide basis, because the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) were not satisfied. The decision is yet another major decision from the Court this term relating to class actions. (See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2011)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart clarifies the "rigorous analysis" that courts must conduct under Rule 23, and reaffirms that the Rules Enabling Act, 28

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

  • Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Quotation

Leo Caseria, The US Supreme Court holds that a claim for monetary relief shall not be certified under Federal Class Actions Rule, if it is not secondary to obtaining an injunction or declaration (Wal-Mart Stores / Dukes), 20 June 2011, e-Competitions Bulletin US Private Enforcement, Art. N° 67026

Visites 45

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues