Employment Discrimination Class Actions: Why Plaintiffs Must Cover All Their Bases After The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) in Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Date
2011
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Texas Tech Law Review
Abstract
Analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes affirmed the trend already witnessed in several federal circuit courts of appeal as well as Texas state courts of applying a more rigorous analysis to the class certification procedural requirements. Argues the Court should rely upon the text of Rule 23(a)(2)-which requires only a single common question of law or fact-and explicitly eliminate any notion of implied predominance from the commonality analysis.
Description
Keywords
Wal-Mart v. Mart, Employment discrimination class actions, Employment discrimination law, Origins of employment discrimination law, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Judicial interpretation and legislative amendment of Title VII, Rule 23(a)'s Certification Requirement, Trend of incorporating implied predominance into the commonality requirement, Implied predominance under Rule 23(a)(2)
Citation
Sherry E. Clegg, Employment Discrimination Class Actions: Why Plaintiffs Must Cover All Their Bases After The Supreme Court's Interpretation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 45 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 1087 (2011-2012)