United States: Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores: En Banc Ninth Circuit Drastically Lowers the Bar for Class Certification and Creates Circuit Court Splits in Approving Largest Class Action Ever Certified

Last Updated: May 7 2010
Article by Marcia E. Goodman, Archis A. Parasharami and Kevin S. Ranlett

Originally published May 3, 2010

Keywords: Dukes, Wal-Mart, punitive damages, company gender discrimination, female employees, back pay

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has issued a significant decision affirming the certification of the largest class action since the adoption of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. In Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Nos. 04-16688 and 04-16720, a divided en banc court ruled, 6 to 5, that the district court did not abuse its discretion in certifying a class of as many as 1.5 million female employees who worked in Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores at any time after December 1998 for gender discrimination claims based on pay.

In a majority opinion by Judge Hawkins, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the class action could proceed with respect to plaintiffs' claims for back pay and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Ninth Circuit also remanded for the district court to consider whether a class could be certified with respect to plaintiffs' claims for punitive damages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to certify a class of employees who were allegedly denied promotions in violation of Title VII. The Ninth Circuit also excluded former employees from the class and remanded for the district court to consider whether a subclass or separate class of former employees would be appropriate. The majority's lengthy opinion creates or deepens conflicts with other circuits on at least three key class certification issues:

  1. When claims for monetary relief predominate over claims for injunctive relief, such that a plaintiff cannot obtain certification under Rule 23(b)(2), which governs class actions for injunctive relief, in order to avoid the higher "predominance" and "superiority" requirements imposed by Rule 23(b)(3) on class actions for damages;
  2. Whether the use of "sample cases" is consistent with the defendant's right to present affirmative defenses against each claim of discrimination at trial; and
  3. Whether the district court must resolve Daubert objections to the admissibility of experts used in support of class certification before ruling on the class certification motion.


In 2001, six plaintiffs brought a class action in a California federal district court alleging that Wal-Mart, the world's largest private employer, had engaged in company-wide gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs asserted that women employed in Wal-Mart stores around the country received less pay and fewer promotions than men in comparable positions. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, back pay, and punitive damages on behalf of a proposed nationwide class.

The district court certified a class that encompassed the claims of up to 1.5 million female employees seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and back pay, and certified a separate class of the same employees seeking punitive damages. The district court declined to certify the claims of employees seeking back pay for allegedly unlawfully withheld promotions. Wal-Mart appealed the certification of both classes under Rule 23(f). After a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review.


The en banc Ninth Circuit affirmed the certification of the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief and back pay, and remanded the punitive-damages class for the district court to determine whether it may be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) or (b)(3). The Ninth Circuit also remanded the claims of former Wal-Mart employees so that the district court can determine whether to certify additional classes or subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3). In addition, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's refusal to certify claims for back pay related to allegedly withheld promotions. In the course of reaching these holdings, the court created or deepened a number of circuit splits.


To be certified, a class must meet all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and one of Rules 23(b)(1), (b)(2) or (b)(3). The district court had certified the class in this case under Rule 23(b)(2), which allows certification when "final injunctive relief or declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole." Class actions in which plaintiffs' claims for monetary relief "predominate" over their claims for injunctive and declaratory relief, however, are not permissible under Rule 23(b)(2). They instead must be certified, if at all, under Rule 23(b)(3), which requires the plaintiff to establish that common issues predominate over individual ones and that a class action would be superior to other means for resolving the dispute.

In Dukes, the Ninth Circuit announced a new standard for determining when monetary relief predominates over injunctive relief such that the class may be certified under the more lenient Rule 23(b)(2) standard: "a class must seek only monetary damages that are not 'superior [in] strength, influence, or authority' to injunctive and declaratory relief." The court directed consideration of four factors:

  1. "[W]hether the monetary relief sought determines the key procedures that will be used,"
  2. "[W]hether it introduces new and significant legal and factual issues,"
  3. "[W]hether it requires individualized hearings, and"
  4. "[W]hether its size and nature—as measured by recovery per class member—raise particular due process and manageability concerns."

The Ninth Circuit concluded that claims for back pay under the circumstances of this case did not predominate over the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief, and then remanded for the district court to apply the new four-factor test to the claims for punitive damages.

The Ninth Circuit's new standard creates a three-way circuit split. The Fifth Circuit (joined by the Sixth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits) holds that monetary relief predominates "unless it is incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief." Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Group, 151 F.3d 402, 415 (5th Cir. 1998). By contrast, the Second Circuit determines whether monetary relief predominates by examining, among other things, whether "even in the absence of a possible monetary recovery, reasonable plaintiffs would bring the suit to obtain the injunctive or declaratory relief sought." Robinson v. Metro-North Commuter R.R., 267 F.3d 147, 164 (2d Cir. 2001).


The Ninth Circuit also affirmed the district court's ruling that, although enormous, the class was nonetheless manageable for trial, and that certification did not violate Wal-Mart's statutory and due process right to defend against each individual claim of discrimination. The Ninth Circuit first held that Title VII plaintiffs need only prove a pattern and practice of discriminatory conduct on a group-wide basis in order to qualify for prospective relief. The court then held that Wal-Mart's right to present individual defenses would be protected by having the district court randomly select and try a small number of "sample cases," and then discount the award distributed to the class by the percentage of meritless cases in the sample. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that this approach would result in a windfall to some class members, but concluded that an employer that has been proven to have discriminated against a group must bear that risk.

In endorsing minitrials of "sample" cases in order to derive a formula for calculating back pay on a class-wide basis, the Ninth Circuit created a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, which rejected that approach in Cimino v Raymark Indus. Inc., 151 F.3d 297, 319 (5th Cir. 1998). In a vigorous dissent, Judge Ikuta argued that the court's sampling approach, or any other formula-based approach to administering back pay, is inapplicable under Title VII because of the defendant's "statutory right to raise individual defenses in response to the request for back pay." For instance, even after a finding of a class-wide pattern and practice of discrimination, an employer would be entitled to prove that a particular employee would have received the same level of pay in the absence of discrimination, or that the employee had failed to mitigate his or her damages. An individual class member's right to due process may also be violated by sampling, as class members with meritorious claims would receive less relief than to which they are entitled. Moreover, because it is unclear how this sampling approach would work in practice, other due process or manageability issues will likely emerge.


The Ninth Circuit created another circuit split in ruling that the district court had not abused its discretion in refusing to test the reliability of the methodology of an expert testifying in support of class certification. The plaintiffs had relied on a sociologist who concluded that Wal-Mart's many store managers and other decision makers are vulnerable to gender stereotyping. The expert testimony was significant to upholding the class certification decision. Wal-Mart moved to strike the report under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), but the district court declined to hold a Daubert hearing and ultimately relied on the expert's testimony in finding the existence of common questions. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part because it was "not convinced" that "Daubert has exactly the same application at the class certification stage as it does to expert testimony relevant at trial."

The Ninth Circuit's decision allows the defendant the opportunity for a Daubert review at the merits stage, potentially striking the report and defeating the class discrimination claim on the merits. However, the Seventh Circuit recently reached the opposite conclusion in American Honda Motor Co. v. Allen, No. 09-8051 (7th Cir. Apr. 7, 2010), holding that district courts must fully adjudicate Daubert challenges to class certification experts before analyzing class certification itself. (for more information, see our earlier Alert at http://www.mayerbrown.com/publications/article.asp?id=8840&nid=6).

Next Steps

The Ninth Circuit's decision certifies a class of historic size, with potential damages in the billions of dollars, and creates or deepens at least three circuit splits on important issues related to class certification. Wal-Mart has indicated in press statements that it is considering its options, including seeking US Supreme Court review. Absent extensions, the petition for a writ of certiorari will be due on July 26, 2010. Amicus briefs in support of the petition will be due in late August, 30 days after the petition is docketed.

In the meantime, however, businesses that are forced to defend against class-action litigation within the Ninth Circuit should expect to face repeated citations to Dukes. In response, a number of steps should be considered. First, defendants should preserve the argument that Dukes is wrongly decided to allow for potential Supreme Court review in their own cases—or to take advantage of any developments should certiorari be granted in Dukes or another case raising similar issues. Second, although the Dukes court held that a full Daubert hearing is not required to resolve challenges to class certification experts, such hearings are not foreclosed by Dukes. Accordingly, defendants should consider aggressively challenging the qualifications, methodology, and conclusions of plaintiffs' experts and requesting that district courts hold hearings when appropriate. Third, companies that seek to demonstrate that the presence of individualized issues precludes class certification should submit as much evidence of individual differences as possible—including, for example, declarations from members of the potential class—to show that a determination of liability on the basis of common proof would be impossible. Finally, businesses should focus on the manageability and due process issues, laying out in as much detail as possible the incorrect results that can emerge from a sampling approach to liability and damages.

Learn more about our Consumer Litigation & Class Actions, Employment and Supreme Court & Appellate practices.

Visit us at www.mayerbrown.com.

Copyright 2010. Mayer Brown LLP, Mayer Brown International LLP, Mayer Brown JSM and/or Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. All rights reserved.

Mayer Brown is a global legal services organization comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the Mayer Brown Practices). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP, a limited liability partnership established in the United States; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership, and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions