CASE STUDY 7.2 WAL MARTS WOMEN FINAL
PAPER 2026 QUESTIONS WITH SOLUTIONS
◉ How many female employees were represented in the class action
against Wal-Mart? Answer: Approximately 1.5 million female
employees.
◉ What did the respondents seek in their lawsuit against Wal-Mart?
Answer: Injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and
backpay.
◉ What was the District Court's finding regarding class certification?
Answer: The District Court certified the class, finding that
respondents satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).
◉ What did the Ninth Circuit conclude about the commonality
requirement? Answer: The Ninth Circuit affirmed that respondents
met Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement.
◉ What is Rule 23(a)(2) concerned with? Answer: It requires that
the class has common questions of law or fact that can be resolved in
a classwide manner.
,◉ What was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the commonality
requirement? Answer: The Court held that the certification of the
plaintiff class was not consistent with Rule 23(a) due to lack of
commonality.
◉ What evidence did the plaintiffs present to support their claim of
discrimination? Answer: The only evidence was a sociologist's
analysis suggesting Wal-Mart's corporate culture was vulnerable to
gender bias.
◉ What did the Court say about Wal-Mart's corporate policy on
discrimination? Answer: The Court noted that Wal-Mart's
announced policy forbids sex discrimination and has penalties for
violations.
◉ What did the Court determine about the plaintiffs' backpay
claims? Answer: The Court ruled that backpay claims were
improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because they are not
incidental to injunctive relief.
◉ What is Rule 23(b)(2) designed for? Answer: It applies to cases
seeking injunctive or declaratory relief that is indivisible and does
not include individualized monetary claims.
,◉ What did the Court conclude about individualized monetary
claims? Answer: Individualized monetary claims, like backpay,
belong in Rule 23(b)(3) which provides procedural protections.
◉ What was the final outcome of the case? Answer: The Supreme
Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, ruling against the
certification of the class.
◉ Who delivered the opinion of the Court? Answer: Justice Antonin
Scalia.
◉ What was the significance of the case for class action lawsuits?
Answer: It clarified the requirements for class certification,
particularly regarding commonality and the treatment of monetary
claims.
◉ What must a party seeking class certification prove under Rule
23(a)(2)? Answer: They must prove that the class has common
questions of law or fact capable of classwide resolution.
◉ What did the Court say about the relationship between individual
claims and class claims? Answer: The Court emphasized that there
must be significant proof of a general policy of discrimination to
bridge individual claims to class claims.
, ◉ What procedural protections does Rule 23(b)(3) provide?
Answer: It includes predominance, superiority, mandatory notice,
and the right to opt out.
◉ What did the Court say about the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of
Rule 23(b)(2)? Answer: The Court found that the Ninth Circuit's
interpretation was inconsistent with the text and structure of the
Rule.
◉ What was the role of the sociologist's analysis in the case?
Answer: The analysis was intended to support claims of a general
policy of discrimination but was deemed insufficient by the Court.
◉ What did the Court determine about the necessity of
individualized determinations for backpay? Answer: The Court
stated that individualized determinations are necessary to assess
each employee's eligibility for backpay.
◉ What did the Court say about the potential for class
representatives to risk valid monetary claims? Answer: The Court
noted that allowing claims for individualized relief to be certified
under Rule 23(b)(2) could jeopardize valid monetary claims.
◉ What was the dissenting opinion's stance in the case? Answer:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by
other justices, indicating disagreement with the majority ruling.
PAPER 2026 QUESTIONS WITH SOLUTIONS
◉ How many female employees were represented in the class action
against Wal-Mart? Answer: Approximately 1.5 million female
employees.
◉ What did the respondents seek in their lawsuit against Wal-Mart?
Answer: Injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and
backpay.
◉ What was the District Court's finding regarding class certification?
Answer: The District Court certified the class, finding that
respondents satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2).
◉ What did the Ninth Circuit conclude about the commonality
requirement? Answer: The Ninth Circuit affirmed that respondents
met Rule 23(a)(2)'s commonality requirement.
◉ What is Rule 23(a)(2) concerned with? Answer: It requires that
the class has common questions of law or fact that can be resolved in
a classwide manner.
,◉ What was the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the commonality
requirement? Answer: The Court held that the certification of the
plaintiff class was not consistent with Rule 23(a) due to lack of
commonality.
◉ What evidence did the plaintiffs present to support their claim of
discrimination? Answer: The only evidence was a sociologist's
analysis suggesting Wal-Mart's corporate culture was vulnerable to
gender bias.
◉ What did the Court say about Wal-Mart's corporate policy on
discrimination? Answer: The Court noted that Wal-Mart's
announced policy forbids sex discrimination and has penalties for
violations.
◉ What did the Court determine about the plaintiffs' backpay
claims? Answer: The Court ruled that backpay claims were
improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because they are not
incidental to injunctive relief.
◉ What is Rule 23(b)(2) designed for? Answer: It applies to cases
seeking injunctive or declaratory relief that is indivisible and does
not include individualized monetary claims.
,◉ What did the Court conclude about individualized monetary
claims? Answer: Individualized monetary claims, like backpay,
belong in Rule 23(b)(3) which provides procedural protections.
◉ What was the final outcome of the case? Answer: The Supreme
Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, ruling against the
certification of the class.
◉ Who delivered the opinion of the Court? Answer: Justice Antonin
Scalia.
◉ What was the significance of the case for class action lawsuits?
Answer: It clarified the requirements for class certification,
particularly regarding commonality and the treatment of monetary
claims.
◉ What must a party seeking class certification prove under Rule
23(a)(2)? Answer: They must prove that the class has common
questions of law or fact capable of classwide resolution.
◉ What did the Court say about the relationship between individual
claims and class claims? Answer: The Court emphasized that there
must be significant proof of a general policy of discrimination to
bridge individual claims to class claims.
, ◉ What procedural protections does Rule 23(b)(3) provide?
Answer: It includes predominance, superiority, mandatory notice,
and the right to opt out.
◉ What did the Court say about the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of
Rule 23(b)(2)? Answer: The Court found that the Ninth Circuit's
interpretation was inconsistent with the text and structure of the
Rule.
◉ What was the role of the sociologist's analysis in the case?
Answer: The analysis was intended to support claims of a general
policy of discrimination but was deemed insufficient by the Court.
◉ What did the Court determine about the necessity of
individualized determinations for backpay? Answer: The Court
stated that individualized determinations are necessary to assess
each employee's eligibility for backpay.
◉ What did the Court say about the potential for class
representatives to risk valid monetary claims? Answer: The Court
noted that allowing claims for individualized relief to be certified
under Rule 23(b)(2) could jeopardize valid monetary claims.
◉ What was the dissenting opinion's stance in the case? Answer:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, joined by
other justices, indicating disagreement with the majority ruling.
