Be our Friend    

   
Text Size
Login Newsletter Sign-up

Keyword Search HCX for your Favorite Author / Content

Dukes v. Wal-Mart: Some Closed Doors and Open Issues

Digg it!Share in FacebookTweet it!
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

closerlook2The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes is likely to change the class action landscape for the foreseeable future. Dukes has, of course, clarified the standard for determining commonality in class actions and narrowed the circumstances in which Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) class actions may include claims for back pay.

Of equal significance, Dukes has resolved a number of important issues that have plagued employment class actions generally. This Littler Report discusses two of those significant issues, which may provide a sounder analytical framework for determining whether employment cases should proceed on a class or collective action basis: (1) the significance of individual evidence at the certification and liability stages as well as at the damages stage; and (2) the problem with representative testimony and "Trial by Formula."

While Dukes resolved many issues for employers facing class actions, it has not, as some predicted, meant the end of the road for employment class actions. Discrimination class actions cases are still being filed and, as discussed below, social science testimony may still continue to be part of those cases.

Collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) also continue to be filed — in droves. In fact, more than 90% of the employment class actions filed in recent years have been FLSA collective actions, and this trend appears to be continuing unabated. However, as discussed in this Report, there are strong legal and policy arguments that the principles underlying Dukes are equally applicable to collective actions under the FLSA.

Finally, some of the post-Dukes decisions that reflect the impact the Supreme Court's decision has had on employment class and collective actions are highlighted.

To read the Littler Report, please click here.

##

Comments:

blog comments powered by Disqus
Author of this article: The LIttler Report
More articles :

» 35M Subtle Reminder - Process and Documentation Are Important for ERISA Fiduciaries

After a four-week bench trial, the court in Tussey et al. v. ABB, Inc. et al.,** No. 2:06-CV-04305 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 31, 2012) (pdf) held that the fiduciaries of two 401(k) retirement plans breached their fiduciary duties to plan participants and...

» Tyson Fresh Meats to pay $2.25 million to settle sex discrimination cases with US Labor Department

More than 1,650 qualified female applicants denied jobs at 4 Midwest plantsWASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs today announced that Tyson Fresh Meats Inc. has entered into two consent...

» 5 reasons for employers to "hold their fire" on dismissal of employment suits

As they said at Bunker Hill, Last week, I wrote about early motions to dismiss employment lawsuits under Rule 12(b)(6) and questioned whether they were always the best strategy for the employer.

» DOJ settled discrmination Lawsuit with Staffing company for 100k

Justice Department Resolves Allegations of Discrimination with Onward Healthcare in ConnecticutWASHINGTON – The Justice Department reached a settlement agreement today with Onward Healthcare, a healthcare staffing company based in Wilton, Conn.,...

» EEOC is reconsidering their policy regarding Criminal Background Checks

Striking the Balance Between Workplace Fairness and Workplace Safety Removing Arbitrary Bars to Hiring People with Arrest and Conviction Records Improves Job Availability, Lowers Crime and Social Costs, Experts Tell EEOC WASHINGTON -- Employers...