Devoted to Corporate Attorneys, Corporate Lawyers, and Corporate Counsel

The following is not meant to be legal advice.

It is usually difficult for plaintiffs to establish that a decision made at one place by a manager has relevance to another employee at another facility.  Before a court can certify a class, the law requires plaintiffs to show that the claims of the potential class members are common and typical.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Nos. 04- 16688 & 04-16720 (9th Cir. Feb. 6, 2007) that rejected Wal-Mart’s argument that class certification was inappropriate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)  requires that injunctive relief predominate over claims for monetary relief. The court determined that (1) though some putative class members are former employees does not alter the main intent of the plaintiffs as a whole and (2) Wal-Mart failed to offer evidence to cast doubt on the plaintiffs’ intentions.