Dukes v. Wal-Mart; Employees file opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition for Certiorari

October 26, 2010 by

As mentioned previously on this blog, in September 2010, Wal-Mart filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart certifying a class of more than a million current and former female workers who allege they were discriminated against.

On October 21, 2010, the counsel for the class of Wal-Mart employees filed an Opposition to Wal-Mart’s Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.  The employees’ counsel argued that the writ should be denied because the decision is interlocutory and two fundamental questions remain unresolved. 

The Ninth Circuit en banc panel remanded two issues to the trial court, so the petition raises issues the case does not present.  The issues remanded are (1) whether and how punitive damages should be certified, and (2) whether to certify the claims of class members no longer employed when the complaint was filed under Rule 23(b)(3).  The employees’ counsel also emphasized that the size of the class does not justify denial of class certification, because Wal-Mart is the country’s largest employer, so of course, the class will be large.

I believe that this opposition will give pause to those claiming that it is a slam-dunk that the U.S. Supreme Court will grant certiorari in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case.  You can see a copy of the Opposition by clicking here: Wal-Mart Opposition to Certiorari.

Steve Larson
An experienced trial lawyer who handles both hourly and contingent fee cases, Steve has expertise in class actions, consumer cases, antitrust litigation, securities litigation, corporate disputes, intellectual property disputes, unfair competition claims, employment matters, and disputes involving family wealth. Steve regularly represents individuals and businesses in federal and state court and has obtained class-wide recovery in multiple class actions. A veteran practitioner, Steve's clients value his creative approach to resolving complex litigation matters.

Legal Disclaimer

The information contained in this blog does not constitute legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. We make no claims, promises or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained in or linked to this blog.