On June 20, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart, Inc. v. Dukes reversed a class certification order in a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart filed on behalf of current and former female employees of Wal-Mart. As reported earlier on this blog, the trial court had certified a class representing approximately 1.5 million female employees at Wal-Mart stores throughout the country. The workers sued the nation’s largest private employer for sex discrimination in Wal-Mart’s pay, promotions, and other employment practices, alleging that employer policies delegating authority to make subjective and discretionary employment decisions allowed for widespread discrimination against women in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay. It did not seek compensatory damages. Read more…
Class Actions Blog
Archive for the ‘Groundbreaking Decisions’ Category
Justice Scalia ignores text of Federal Arbitration Act
I recently posted the results of the Supreme Court opinion in AT&T v. Concepcion – the invalidation of a state law that rendered unenforceable the waiver of class action suits in arbitration. However, upon closer review of the opinion, the method utilized by the Supreme Court majority of five Republican nominated Justices is very troubling. Professing to simply follow the “text” of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), the opinion of the court written by Justice Scalia in effect took a black magic marker and crossed out the words of the text they didn’t like. Without those words in the statute, the result would indeed be true to the text. But just as aptly as the boy in the Hans Christian Andersen fable cried, “the Emperor has no clothes,” ignoring the words of a statute is not a textual approach. Read more…
AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion: By No Means the End
On April 27, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. __ (2011), in which the Court held that § 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a certain California judicial rule (the so-called Discover Bank rule) relating to collective-action waivers in arbitration agreements. Justice Scalia authored the 5-4 majority opinion, and – not surprisingly – was joined by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts. Although AT&T Mobility in some ways is a victory for big business and a potential setback for consumers, the decision is by no means the death knell for consumer class actions. Nor does the decision signify the end to consumer challenges to pre-dispute arbitration provisions, including on the grounds of unconscionability. Read more…
Eleventh Circuit creates confusion with CAFA decision
CAFA substantially changed the class action landscape in 2005 by creating specialized jurisdiction in federal court for class action cases. The law amended 28 U.S.C. § 1332 to permit federal courts to hear class action cases of at least 100 members when the parties are minimally diverse and the aggregate damages exceed $5 million. In Cappuccitti v. DirecTV, Inc., the Eleventh Circuit held that the case before it, originally filed as a class action in the Northern District of Georgia under CAFA, did not meet the jurisdictional requirements to be heard in federal court. While instructing the district court to dismiss the case due to lack of jurisdiction, the court held that in class actions originally filed under CAFA, at least one plaintiff must assert damages of over $75,000 to meet the jurisdictional requirements of Section 1332(a). To do otherwise, the court stated, would “transform federal courts hearing originally-filed CAFA cases into small claims courts, where plaintiffs could bring five-dollar claims by alleging gargantuan class sizes to meet the $5,000,000 aggregate amount requirement.” Read more…
