Search for: "Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes" Results 21 - 40 of 720
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 Jan 2020, 10:28 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 10:28 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 7:10 am by Aditi Shah
First, because the Ninth Circuit already recognized that some class members in this case may not have a constitutional right to bond hearings, the class may no longer satisfy the Supreme Court’s standard articulated in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Oct 2019, 4:24 pm by Nassiri Law
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., involved of a group of 18 women who had originally been part of the landmark U.S. [read post]
14 Jun 2019, 10:01 am by Greg Mersol
These issues will likely become even worse as the case progresses, as the court, will ultimately need to sort out countless allegations regarding hiring, training, transfer, promotion, and discharge on an individual basis, a process the Supreme Court rejected in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Jan 2019, 7:06 am by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Plaintiffs’ lawyers continued to craft refined class certification theories to counter the more stringent Rule 23 certification requirements established in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
3 Dec 2018, 2:13 pm by Seyfarth Shaw LLP
This case represents a significant win for employers as the Court rebuffed a novel attempt to create commonality out of discretionary decision-making after the Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]
11 Jul 2018, 7:07 am by Joy Waltemath
Noting that disparate impact claims under Title VII challenge “a facially neutral policy or practice that causes a disparate impact on a protected group, even if the employer has no intent to discriminate,” the court observed that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. [read post]