Court Systems and Jurisdiction Supreme Court Sides With Walmart

Questions: 1. This story is about the Supreme Courts decision. What process did this case have to go through to get to the Supreme Court? 2. In the story, two justices wrote differing opinions about the issue. Discuss the differences between a majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and a dissenting opinion. What effect does each type of opinion have on the state of the law in America? 3. What type of jurisdiction did the federal courts have in this case? Was it a federal question case or a diversity of citizenship case? Why? Answers: 1. In this paper, we shall discuss about the Wal- Mart v. Dukes case wherein about 1.6 million female employees brought a class action against the giant supermarket chain, Wal-Mart. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Wal-Mart on the ground that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the company has policies, which discriminates against women with respect to promotions and equal pay (Zimmer, 2011). In 2000, the issue of sex discrimination against Wal-mart was taken up by Betty Dukes; In 2001, a case was instituted in the U.S District Court on behalf of 1.6million women against Wal-mart In 2004, the decision of the Federal District Judge was appealed by Wal-mart. Wal-mart also lost before the Court of Appeals. Finally, Wal-marts appeal was heard by the Supreme Court. 2. Majority opinion means that more than half of the court has agreed upon a particular decision. On the other hand, concurring opinion means the decision is the same but the reasons vary. Dissenting opinion signifies the opinion of the panel, which is against majority decision. The majority decision is binding on the lower courts in the United States of America. 3. In this case, the Federal Court was acting under the diversity of citizenship jurisdiction. This is because there is complete diversity between the parties. It was finally decided that henceforth when women want to bring such action they shall have to do so individually and no class action would be permissible. In conclusion it can be stated that this case is a major win for Wal-mart and for that matter large companies from being subjected to class litigations relating to discrimination (Selmi, 2011). Reference List Selmi, M. (2011). Theorizing Systemic Disparate Treatment Law: After Wal-Mart v. Dukes.Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 477-511. Zimmer, M. J. (2011). Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Taking the Protection Out of Protected Classes.Dukes: Taking the Protection Out of Protected Classes (October 27, 2011),16.