by Deepak Gupta
This morning, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a closely watched class-action case from the Ninth Circuit, Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Although Dukes is an employment case, involving allegations of gender discrimination -- it's been called the largest class action in history -- the case is likely to have major implications for consumer class actions as well.
Dukes has already been the subject of a lot of press attention. In fact, I can't remember the last time a dispute between private parties garnered as much press at the cert stage, before the Court had even considered it. The chatter increased even more when the Court emerged from a recent conference without granting or denying the petition. As some observers had predicted, the Court took the additional time to tinker with the two questions presented in Wal-Mart's petition:
I. Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)--which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief--and, if so, under what circumstances.
II. Whether the certification order conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
The second question, to which most of
Wal-Mart's petition was devoted, reflected an unusual kitchen-sink approach by Wal-Mart's lawyers. The Court did not grant certiorari on that unmanageably broad question. Instead, the Justices agreed to hear the first question and posed a second question of their own: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a)."
This morning's grant, together with
Concepcion and
Shady Grove, may reflect a growing interest among the Justices in class actions--a subject with which the Court has previously had relatively little involvement. Lyle Denniston has more at SCOTUSblog,
here.