Get the up-to-date Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio 2024 now

Get Form
Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio Preview on Page 1

Here's how it works

01. Edit your form online
01. Edit your form online
Type text, add images, blackout confidential details, add comments, highlights and more.
02. Sign it in a few clicks
02. Sign it in a few clicks
Draw your signature, type it, upload its image, or use your mobile device as a signature pad.
03. Share your form with others
03. Share your form with others
Send it via email, link, or fax. You can also download it, export it or print it out.

The best way to edit Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio in PDF format online

Form edit decoration
9.5
Ease of Setup
DocHub User Ratings on G2
9.0
Ease of Use
DocHub User Ratings on G2

Handling documents with our feature-rich and user-friendly PDF editor is straightforward. Follow the instructions below to fill out Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio online easily and quickly:

  1. Log in to your account. Sign up with your email and password or register a free account to test the service before choosing the subscription.
  2. Upload a document. Drag and drop the file from your device or add it from other services, like Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox, or an external link.
  3. Edit Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio. Effortlessly add and underline text, insert pictures, checkmarks, and signs, drop new fillable fields, and rearrange or remove pages from your paperwork.
  4. Get the Brief of petitioner for Wal-Mart Stores v Dukes, 10-277 Supreme court brief on the merits of petitio completed. Download your adjusted document, export it to the cloud, print it from the editor, or share it with others using a Shareable link or as an email attachment.

Make the most of DocHub, the most straightforward editor to promptly handle your documentation online!

be ready to get more

Complete this form in 5 minutes or less

Get form

Got questions?

We have answers to the most popular questions from our customers. If you can't find an answer to your question, please contact us.
Contact us
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Wal-Marts policy of granting local supervisors discretion in pay and promotion decisions, which allegedly has a disparate impact on female employees, did not provide a common question of fact, as required for class certification under Rule 23(a)(2). 31 S.
The Dukes court observed that Wal-Marts relevant employment decisions were decentralized and made in local stores. The court found this decision-making structure to be the opposite of a common practice justifying a class action.
The EEOC charged in its suit that Walmart refused to promote an employee to a department manager position at its Ottumwa, Iowa store based on sex stereotypes about women with young children.
Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart.