stores
dukes
et
argued
march
decided
june
respondents
current
former
employees
petitioner
sought
judgment
company
injunctive
declaratory
relief
punitive
damages
backpay
behalf
nationwide
class
million
female
employees
alleged
discrimination
women
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
claim
local
managers
exercise
discretion
pay
promotions
disproportionately
favor
men
unlawful
disparate
impact
female
employees
refusal
cabin
managers
authority
amounts
disparate
treatment
district
certified
class
finding
respondents
satisfied
federal
rule
civil
procedure
rule
requirement
showing
party
opposing
class
acted
refused
act
grounds
apply
generally
class
final
injunctive
relief
corresponding
declaratory
relief
appropriate
respecting
class
whole
ninth
circuit
substantially
affirmed
concluding
inter
alia
respondents
met
rule
commonality
requirement
backpay
claims
certified
part
class
claims
predominate
declaratory
injunctive
relief
requests
also
ruled
class
action
manageably
tried
without
depriving
right
present
statutory
defenses
district
selected
random
set
claims
valuation
extrapolated
validity
value
untested
claims
sample
set
held
certification
plaintiff
class
consistent
rule
pp
rule
requires
party
seeking
class
certification
prove
class
common
questions
law
fact
claims
must
depend
upon
common
contention
nature
capable
classwide
resolution
means
determination
truth
falsity
resolve
issue
central
validity
one
claims
one
stroke
proof
commonality
necessarily
overlaps
respondents
merits
contention
engages
pattern
practice
discrimination
crux
title
vii
inquiry
reason
particular
employment
decision
cooper
federal
reserve
bank
richmond
respondents
wish
sue
millions
employment
decisions
without
glue
holding
together
alleged
reasons
decisions
impossible
say
examination
class
members
claims
produce
common
answer
crucial
discrimination
question
pp
general
telephone
southwest
falcon
describes
proper
approach
commonality
facts
case
conceptual
gap
individual
discrimination
claim
existence
class
persons
suffered
injury
must
bridged
ignificant
proof
employer
operated
general
policy
discrimination
proof
absent
announced
policy
forbids
sex
discrimination
company
penalties
denials
equal
opportunity
respondents
evidence
general
discrimination
policy
sociologist
analysis
asserting
corporate
culture
made
vulnerable
gender
bias
estimate
percent
employment
decisions
might
determined
stereotypical
thinking
testimony
worlds
away
significant
proof
operated
general
policy
discrimination
pp
corporate
policy
plaintiffs
evidence
convincingly
establishes
policy
giving
local
supervisors
discretion
employment
matters
policy
basis
title
vii
claim
recognizing
claim
exist
mean
every
employee
company
policy
common
claim
company
size
geographical
scope
unlikely
managers
exercise
discretion
common
way
without
common
direction
respondents
attempt
show
direction
means
statistical
anecdotal
evidence
falls
well
short
pp
respondents
backpay
claims
improperly
certified
rule
pp
claims
monetary
relief
may
certified
rule
least
monetary
relief
incidental
requested
injunctive
declaratory
relief
unnecessary
decide
whether
monetary
claims
ever
certified
rule
minimum
claims
individualized
relief
like
backpay
excluded
rule
applies
single
indivisible
remedy
provide
relief
class
member
rule
history
structure
indicate
individualized
monetary
claims
belong
instead
rule
procedural
protections
predominance
superiority
mandatory
notice
right
opt
pp
respondents
nonetheless
argue
backpay
claims
appropriately
certified
rule
claims
predominate
injunctive
declaratory
relief
requests
interpretation
basis
rule
text
obvious
violence
rule
structural
features
mere
predominance
proper
injunctive
claim
nothing
justify
eliminating
rule
procedural
protections
creates
incentives
class
representatives
place
risk
potentially
valid
monetary
relief
claims
moreover
district
reevaluate
roster
class
members
continuously
excise
leave
employment
become
ineligible
classwide
injunctive
declaratory
relief
contrast
properly
certified
class
action
backpay
irrelevant
whether
plaintiffs
still
employed
follows
backpay
claims
certified
rule
pp
unnecessary
decide
whether
forms
incidental
monetary
relief
consistent
interpretation
rule
due
process
clause
respondents
backpay
claims
incidental
requested
injunction
entitled
individualized
determinations
employee
eligibility
backpay
plaintiff
establishes
pattern
practice
discrimination
district
must
usually
conduct
additional
proceedings
determine
scope
individual
relief
teamsters
company
raise
individual
affirmative
defenses
demonstrate
action
lawful
ninth
circuit
erred
trying
replace
proceedings
trial
formula
rule
interpreted
abridge
enlarge
modify
substantive
right
class
certified
premise
entitled
litigate
statutory
defenses
individual
claims
pp
reversed
scalia
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
thomas
alito
joined
ginsburg
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
parts
iii
ginsburg
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
breyer
sotomayor
kagan
joined
stores
petitioner
betty
dukes
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
presented
one
expansive
class
actions
ever
district
appeals
approved
certification
class
comprising
one
half
million
plaintiffs
current
former
female
employees
petitioner
allege
discretion
exercised
local
supervisors
pay
promotion
matters
violates
title
vii
women
addition
injunctive
declaratory
relief
plaintiffs
seek
award
backpay
consider
whether
certification
plaintiff
class
consistent
federal
rules
civil
procedure
petitioner
nation
largest
private
employer
operates
four
types
retail
stores
throughout
country
discount
stores
supercenters
neighborhood
markets
sam
clubs
stores
divided
seven
nationwide
divisions
turn
comprise
regions
stores
apiece
store
separate
departments
staff
positions
operates
approximately
stores
employs
one
million
people
pay
promotion
decisions
generally
committed
local
managers
broad
discretion
exercised
largely
subjective
manner
nd
cal
local
store
managers
may
increase
wages
hourly
employees
within
limits
limited
corporate
oversight
salaried
employees
store
managers
deputies
higher
corporate
authorities
discretion
set
pay
preestablished
ranges
promotions
work
similar
fashion
permits
store
managers
apply
subjective
criteria
selecting
candidates
support
managers
first
step
path
management
admission
management
training
program
however
require
candidate
meet
certain
objective
criteria
including
performance
rating
least
one
year
tenure
applicant
current
position
willingness
relocate
except
requirements
regional
district
managers
discretion
use
judgment
selecting
candidates
management
training
promotion
higher
office
assistant
manager
store
manager
similarly
discretion
employee
superiors
prescribed
objective
factors
satisfied
named
plaintiffs
lawsuit
representing
million
members
certified
class
three
current
former
employees
allege
company
discriminated
basis
sex
denying
equal
pay
promotions
violation
title
vii
civil
rights
act
stat
amended
et
betty
dukes
began
working
pittsburgh
california
started
cashier
later
sought
received
promotion
customer
service
manager
series
disciplinary
violations
however
dukes
demoted
back
cashier
greeter
dukes
concedes
violated
company
policy
contends
disciplinary
actions
fact
retaliation
invoking
internal
complaint
procedures
male
employees
disciplined
similar
infractions
dukes
also
claims
two
male
greeters
pittsburgh
store
paid
christine
kwapnoski
worked
sam
club
stores
missouri
california
adult
life
held
number
positions
including
supervisory
position
claims
male
manager
yelled
frequently
screamed
female
employees
men
manager
question
told
wear
makeup
dress
little
better
app
final
named
plaintiff
edith
arana
worked
store
duarte
california
approached
store
manager
one
occasion
management
training
brushed
arana
concluded
denied
opportunity
advancement
sex
initiated
internal
complaint
procedures
whereupon
told
apply
directly
district
manager
thought
store
manager
unfair
arana
however
decided
never
applied
management
training
fired
failure
comply
timekeeping
policy
plaintiffs
respondents
allege
express
corporate
policy
advancement
women
rather
claim
local
managers
discretion
pay
promotions
exercised
disproportionately
favor
men
leading
unlawful
disparate
impact
female
employees
see
respondents
say
aware
effect
refusal
cabin
managers
authority
amounts
disparate
treatment
see
complaint
seeks
injunctive
declaratory
relief
punitive
damages
backpay
ask
compensatory
damages
importantly
purposes
respondents
claim
discrimination
subjected
common
female
employees
basic
theory
case
strong
uniform
corporate
culture
permits
bias
women
infect
perhaps
subconsciously
discretionary
decisionmaking
one
thousands
managers
thereby
making
every
woman
company
victim
one
common
discriminatory
practice
respondents
therefore
wish
litigate
title
vii
claims
female
employees
stores
nationwide
class
action
class
certification
governed
federal
rule
civil
procedure
rule
party
seeking
certification
must
demonstrate
first
class
numerous
joinder
members
impracticable
questions
law
fact
common
class
claims
defenses
representative
parties
typical
claims
defenses
class
representative
parties
fairly
adequately
protect
interests
class
paragraph
breaks
added
second
proposed
class
must
satisfy
least
one
three
requirements
listed
rule
respondents
rely
rule
applies
party
opposing
class
acted
refused
act
grounds
apply
generally
class
final
injunctive
relief
corresponding
declaratory
relief
appropriate
respecting
class
whole
invoking
provisions
respondents
moved
district
certify
plaintiff
class
consisting
women
employed
domestic
retail
store
time
since
december
may
subjected
challenged
pay
management
track
promotions
policies
practices
quoting
plaintiff
motion
class
certification
case
nd
cal
doc
evidence
indeed
questions
law
fact
common
women
rule
requires
respondents
relied
chiefly
three
forms
proof
statistical
evidence
pay
promotion
disparities
men
women
company
anecdotal
reports
discrimination
female
employees
testimony
sociologist
william
bielby
conducted
social
framework
analysis
culture
personnel
practices
concluded
company
vulnerable
gender
discrimination
en
banc
unsuccessfully
moved
strike
much
evidence
also
offered
countervailing
statistical
proof
effort
defeat
rule
requirements
commonality
typicality
adequate
representation
contended
respondents
monetary
claims
backpay
certified
rule
first
rule
refers
injunctive
declaratory
relief
second
backpay
claims
manageably
tried
class
without
depriving
right
present
certain
statutory
defenses
one
limitation
relevant
district
granted
respondents
motion
certified
proposed
divided
en
banc
appeals
substantially
affirmed
district
certification
order
majority
concluded
respondents
evidence
commonality
sufficient
raise
common
question
whether
female
employees
nationwide
subjected
single
set
corporate
policies
merely
number
independent
discriminatory
acts
may
worked
unlawfully
discriminate
violation
title
vii
emphasis
deleted
also
agreed
district
named
plaintiffs
claims
sufficiently
typical
class
whole
satisfy
rule
serve
adequate
class
representatives
see
rule
respect
rule
question
ninth
circuit
held
respondents
backpay
claims
certified
part
class
predominat
requests
declaratory
injunctive
relief
meaning
superior
strength
influence
authority
nonmonetary
claims
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
finally
appeals
determined
action
manageably
tried
class
action
district
adopt
approach
ninth
circuit
approved
hilao
estate
marcos
compensatory
damages
class
members
calculated
selecting
claims
random
referring
claims
special
master
valuation
extrapolating
validity
value
untested
claims
sample
set
see
appeals
aw
reason
similar
procedure
used
hilao
employed
case
allow
present
individual
defenses
randomly
selected
cases
thus
revealing
approximate
percentage
class
members
whose
unequal
pay
nonpromotion
due
something
gender
discrimination
emphasis
deleted
granted
certiorari
ii
class
action
exception
usual
rule
litigation
conducted
behalf
individual
named
parties
califano
yamasaki
order
justify
departure
rule
class
representative
must
part
class
interest
suffer
injury
class
members
east
tex
motor
freight
system
rodriguez
quoting
schlesinger
reservists
comm
stop
war
rule
ensures
named
plaintiffs
appropriate
representatives
class
whose
claims
wish
litigate
rule
four
requirements
numerosity
commonality
typicality
adequate
representation
effectively
class
claims
fairly
encompassed
named
plaintiff
claims
general
telephone
southwest
falcon
quoting
general
telephone
northwest
eeoc
crux
case
commonality
rule
requiring
plaintiff
show
questions
law
fact
common
class
rule
language
easy
misread
since
ny
competently
crafted
class
complaint
literally
raises
common
nagareda
class
certification
age
aggregate
proof
rev
example
us
plaintiffs
indeed
work
managers
discretion
pay
unlawful
employment
practice
remedies
get
reciting
questions
sufficient
obtain
class
certification
commonality
requires
plaintiff
demonstrate
class
members
suffered
injury
falcon
supra
mean
merely
suffered
violation
law
title
vii
example
violated
many
ways
intentional
discrimination
hiring
promotion
criteria
result
disparate
impact
use
practices
part
many
different
superiors
single
company
quite
obviously
mere
claim
employees
company
suffered
title
vii
injury
even
title
vii
injury
gives
cause
believe
claims
productively
litigated
claims
must
depend
upon
common
contention
example
assertion
discriminatory
bias
part
supervisor
common
contention
moreover
must
nature
capable
classwide
resolution
means
determination
truth
falsity
resolve
issue
central
validity
one
claims
one
stroke
matters
class
certification
raising
common
even
droves
rather
capacity
classwide
proceeding
generate
common
answers
apt
drive
resolution
litigation
dissimilarities
within
proposed
class
potential
impede
generation
common
answers
nagareda
supra
rule
set
forth
mere
pleading
standard
party
seeking
class
certification
must
affirmatively
demonstrate
compliance
rule
must
prepared
prove
fact
sufficiently
numerous
parties
common
questions
law
fact
etc
recognized
falcon
sometimes
may
necessary
probe
behind
pleadings
coming
rest
certification
question
certification
proper
trial
satisfied
rigorous
analysis
prerequisites
rule
satisfied
see
ctual
presumed
conformance
rule
remains
indispensable
frequently
rigorous
analysis
entail
overlap
merits
plaintiff
underlying
claim
class
determination
generally
involves
considerations
enmeshed
factual
legal
issues
comprising
plaintiff
cause
action
falcon
supra
quoting
coopers
lybrand
livesay
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
anything
unusual
consequence
necessity
touching
aspects
merits
order
resolve
preliminary
matters
jurisdiction
venue
familiar
feature
litigation
see
szabo
bridgeport
machines
easterbrook
case
proof
commonality
necessarily
overlaps
respondents
merits
contention
engages
pattern
practice
resolving
individual
title
vii
claim
crux
inquiry
reason
particular
employment
decision
cooper
federal
reserve
bank
richmond
respondents
wish
sue
literally
millions
employment
decisions
without
glue
holding
alleged
reasons
decisions
together
impossible
say
examination
class
members
claims
relief
produce
common
answer
crucial
question
disfavored
opinion
falcon
describes
commonality
issue
must
approached
employee
claimed
deliberately
denied
promotion
account
race
obtained
certification
class
comprising
employees
wrongfully
denied
promotions
applicants
wrongfully
denied
jobs
rejected
composite
class
lack
commonality
typicality
explaining
conceptually
wide
gap
individual
claim
denied
promotion
higher
pay
discriminatory
grounds
otherwise
unsupported
allegation
company
policy
discrimination
existence
class
persons
suffered
injury
individual
individual
claim
class
claim
share
common
questions
law
fact
individual
claim
typical
class
claims
falcon
suggested
two
ways
conceptual
gap
might
bridged
first
employer
used
biased
testing
procedure
evaluate
applicants
employment
incumbent
employees
class
action
behalf
every
applicant
employee
might
prejudiced
test
clearly
satisfy
commonality
typicality
requirements
rule
second
ignificant
proof
employer
operated
general
policy
discrimination
conceivably
justify
class
applicants
employees
discrimination
manifested
hiring
promotion
practices
general
fashion
entirely
subjective
decisionmaking
processes
ibid
think
statement
precisely
describes
respondents
burden
case
first
manner
bridging
gap
obviously
application
testing
procedure
companywide
evaluation
method
charged
bias
whole
point
permitting
discretionary
decisionmaking
avoid
evaluating
employees
common
standard
second
manner
bridging
gap
requires
significant
proof
operated
general
policy
discrimination
entirely
absent
announced
policy
forbids
sex
discrimination
see
app
district
recognized
company
imposes
penalties
denials
equal
employment
opportunity
evidence
general
policy
discrimination
respondents
produced
testimony
william
bielby
sociological
expert
relying
social
framework
analysis
bielby
testified
strong
corporate
culture
makes
gender
bias
however
determine
specificity
regularly
stereotypes
play
meaningful
role
employment
decisions
deposition
bielby
conceded
calculate
whether
percent
percent
employment
decisions
might
determined
stereotyped
thinking
nd
cal
parties
dispute
whether
bielby
testimony
even
met
standards
admission
expert
testimony
federal
rule
civil
procedure
daubert
case
see
daubert
merrell
dow
pharmaceuticals
district
concluded
daubert
apply
expert
testimony
certification
stage
proceedings
doubt
even
properly
considered
bielby
testimony
nothing
advance
respondents
case
hether
percent
percent
employment
decisions
might
determined
stereotyped
thinking
essential
question
respondents
theory
commonality
depends
bielby
admittedly
answer
question
safely
disregard
say
worlds
away
significant
proof
operated
general
policy
discrimination
corporate
policy
plaintiffs
evidence
convincingly
establishes
policy
allowing
discretion
local
supervisors
employment
matters
face
course
opposite
uniform
employment
practice
provide
commonality
needed
class
action
policy
uniform
employment
practices
also
common
presumptively
reasonable
way
business
one
said
raise
inference
discriminatory
conduct
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
sure
recognized
appropriate
cases
giving
discretion
supervisors
basis
title
vii
liability
theory
since
employer
undisciplined
system
subjective
decisionmaking
precisely
effects
system
pervaded
impermissible
intentional
discrimination
recognition
type
title
vii
claim
exist
lead
conclusion
every
employee
company
using
system
discretion
claim
common
contrary
left
devices
managers
corporation
surely
managers
corporation
forbids
sex
discrimination
select
criteria
hiring
promotion
produce
actionable
disparity
others
may
choose
reward
various
attributes
produce
disparate
impact
scores
general
aptitude
tests
educational
achievements
see
griggs
duke
power
still
managers
may
guilty
intentional
discrimination
produces
disparity
company
demonstrating
invalidity
one
manager
use
discretion
nothing
demonstrate
invalidity
another
party
seeking
certify
nationwide
class
unable
show
employees
title
vii
claims
fact
depend
answers
common
questions
respondents
identified
common
mode
exercising
discretion
pervades
entire
company
aside
reliance
bielby
social
frameworks
analysis
rejected
company
size
geographical
scope
quite
unbelievable
managers
exercise
discretion
common
way
without
common
direction
respondents
attempt
make
showing
means
statistical
anecdotal
evidence
evidence
falls
well
short
statistical
evidence
consists
primarily
regression
analyses
performed
richard
drogin
statistician
marc
bendick
labor
economist
drogin
conducted
analysis
comparing
number
women
promoted
management
positions
percentage
women
available
pool
hourly
workers
considering
regional
national
data
drogin
concluded
statistically
significant
disparities
men
women
disparities
explained
gender
discrimination
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
bendick
compared
data
competitive
retailers
concluded
promotes
lower
percentage
women
competitors
ibid
even
taken
face
value
studies
insufficient
establish
respondents
theory
proved
classwide
basis
falcon
held
one
named
plaintiff
experience
discrimination
insufficient
infer
discriminatory
treatment
typical
employer
employment
practices
similar
failure
inference
arises
judge
ikuta
observed
dissent
nformation
disparities
regional
national
level
establish
existence
disparities
individual
stores
let
alone
raise
inference
policy
discrimination
implemented
discretionary
decisions
store
district
level
regional
pay
disparity
example
may
attributable
small
set
stores
establish
uniform
disparity
upon
plaintiffs
theory
commonality
depends
another
fundamental
respect
respondents
statistical
proof
fails
even
established
pay
promotion
pattern
differs
nationwide
figures
regional
figures
stores
still
demonstrate
commonality
issue
exists
managers
claim
availability
women
qualified
women
interested
women
stores
area
mirror
national
regional
statistics
almost
claim
applying
criteria
whose
nature
effects
differ
store
store
landmark
case
held
giving
discretion
supervisors
basis
title
vii
liability
theory
plurality
opinion
conditioned
holding
corollary
merely
proving
discretionary
system
produced
racial
sexual
disparity
enough
plaintiff
must
begin
identifying
specific
employment
practice
challenged
watson
accord
wards
cove
packing
atonio
approving
statement
superseded
statute
grounds
necessary
class
plaintiffs
sought
certified
bare
existence
delegated
discretion
respondents
identified
specific
employment
practice
much
less
one
ties
million
claims
together
merely
showing
policy
discretion
produced
overall
disparity
suffice
respondents
anecdotal
evidence
suffers
defects
addition
weak
raise
inference
individual
discretionary
personnel
decisions
discriminatory
teamsters
addition
substantial
statistical
evidence
discrimination
government
plaintiff
produced
specific
accounts
racial
discrimination
particular
individuals
see
number
significant
company
involved
employees
minorities
class
consisted
around
persons
overruled
grounds
teamsters
supra
anecdotes
thus
represented
roughly
one
account
every
eight
members
class
moreover
appeals
noted
anecdotes
came
individuals
spread
throughout
company
part
worked
company
operational
centers
employed
largest
numbers
class
members
contrast
respondents
filed
affidavits
reporting
experiences
discrimination
every
class
members
relating
stores
ikuta
dissenting
half
reports
concentrated
six
alabama
california
florida
missouri
texas
wisconsin
half
one
two
anecdotes
anecdotes
operations
even
every
single
one
accounts
true
demonstrate
entire
company
operate
general
policy
discrimination
falcon
supra
respondents
must
show
certify
companywide
dissent
misunderstands
nature
foregoing
analysis
criticizes
focus
dissimilarities
putative
class
members
ground
blend
ed
rule
commonality
requirement
rule
inquiry
whether
common
questions
predominate
individual
ones
see
post
ginsburg
concurring
part
dissenting
part
quite
agree
purposes
rule
ven
single
common
post
quoting
nagareda
preexistence
principle
structure
class
action
colum
rev
consider
dissimilarities
order
determine
rule
requires
whether
common
questions
predominate
order
determine
rule
requires
whether
ven
single
common
question
respondents
provide
convincing
proof
companywide
discriminatory
pay
promotion
policy
concluded
established
existence
common
sum
agree
chief
judge
kozinski
members
class
held
multitude
different
jobs
different
levels
hierarchy
variable
lengths
time
stores
sprinkled
across
kaleidoscope
supervisors
male
female
subject
variety
regional
policies
differed
thrived
others
poorly
little
common
sex
lawsuit
dissenting
opinion
iii
also
conclude
respondents
claims
backpay
improperly
certified
federal
rule
civil
procedure
opinion
ticor
title
ins
brown
per
curiam
expressed
serious
doubt
whether
claims
monetary
relief
may
certified
provision
hold
may
least
monetary
relief
incidental
injunctive
declaratory
relief
rule
allows
class
treatment
party
opposing
class
acted
refused
act
grounds
apply
generally
class
final
injunctive
relief
corresponding
declaratory
relief
appropriate
respecting
class
whole
one
possible
reading
provision
applies
requests
injunctive
declaratory
relief
authorize
class
certification
monetary
claims
need
reach
broader
question
case
think
minimum
claims
individualized
relief
like
backpay
issue
satisfy
rule
key
class
indivisible
nature
injunctive
declaratory
remedy
warranted
notion
conduct
enjoined
declared
unlawful
class
members
none
nagareda
words
rule
applies
single
injunction
declaratory
judgment
provide
relief
member
class
authorize
class
certification
individual
class
member
entitled
different
injunction
declaratory
judgment
defendant
similarly
authorize
class
certification
class
member
entitled
individualized
award
monetary
damages
interpretation
accords
history
rule
rule
stems
equity
practice
predated
codification
amchem
products
windsor
determining
meaning
previously
looked
historical
models
rule
based
ortiz
fibreboard
observed
amchem
ivil
rights
cases
parties
charged
unlawful
discrimination
prime
examples
meant
capture
particular
rule
reflects
series
decisions
involving
challenges
racial
segregation
conduct
remedied
single
classwide
order
none
cases
cited
advisory
committee
examples
antecedents
plaintiffs
combine
claim
individualized
relief
classwide
injunction
see
advisory
committee
note
citing
cases
potts
flax
brunson
board
trustees
univ
school
dist
clarendon
per
curiam
frasier
board
trustees
supp
nc
aff
permitting
combination
individualized
classwide
relief
class
also
inconsistent
structure
rule
classes
certified
share
traditional
justifications
class
treatment
individual
adjudications
impossible
unworkable
relief
sought
must
perforce
affect
entire
class
class
reason
also
mandatory
classes
rule
provides
opportunity
class
members
opt
even
oblige
district
afford
notice
action
rule
contrast
adventuresome
innovation
amendments
amchem
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
framed
situations
treatment
clearly
called
quoting
advisory
committee
notes
allows
class
certification
much
wider
set
circumstances
greater
procedural
protections
prerequisites
questions
law
fact
common
class
members
predominate
questions
affecting
individual
members
class
action
superior
available
methods
fairly
efficiently
adjudicating
controversy
rule
unlike
classes
class
mandatory
class
members
entitled
receive
best
notice
practicable
circumstances
withdraw
class
option
see
rule
given
structure
think
clear
monetary
claims
belong
rule
procedural
protections
attending
class
predominance
superiority
mandatory
notice
right
opt
missing
rule
considers
unnecessary
considers
unnecessary
class
class
seeks
indivisible
injunction
benefitting
members
reason
undertake
inquiry
whether
class
issues
predominate
whether
class
action
superior
method
adjudicating
dispute
predominance
superiority
respect
class
member
individualized
claim
money
precisely
requires
judge
make
findings
predominance
superiority
allowing
class
similarly
require
class
members
given
notice
optout
rights
presumably
thought
rightly
wrongly
notice
purpose
class
mandatory
depriving
people
right
sue
manner
complies
due
process
clause
context
class
action
predominantly
money
damages
held
absence
notice
violates
due
process
see
phillips
petroleum
shutts
never
held
monetary
claims
predominate
serious
possibility
may
provides
additional
reason
read
rule
include
monetary
claims
conclusion
respondents
argue
claims
backpay
appropriately
certified
part
class
rule
claims
predominate
requests
injunctive
declaratory
relief
rely
upon
advisory
committee
statement
rule
extend
cases
appropriate
final
relief
relates
exclusively
predominantly
money
damages
emphasis
added
negative
implication
argue
extend
cases
appropriate
final
relief
relates
partially
nonpredominantly
money
damages
course
rule
advisory
committee
description
governs
mere
negative
inference
view
suffice
establish
disposition
basis
rule
text
obvious
violence
rule
structural
features
mere
predominance
proper
injunctive
claim
nothing
justify
elimination
rule
procedural
protections
neither
establishes
superiority
class
adjudication
individual
adjudication
cures
notice
problems
fail
see
rule
read
nullify
protections
whenever
plaintiff
class
option
combines
monetary
claims
request
even
predominating
request
injunction
respondents
predominance
test
moreover
creates
perverse
incentives
class
representatives
place
risk
potentially
valid
claims
monetary
relief
case
example
named
plaintiffs
declined
include
employees
claims
compensatory
damages
complaint
strategy
including
backpay
claims
made
likely
monetary
relief
predominate
also
created
possibility
predominance
test
correct
individual
class
members
claims
precluded
litigation
power
hold
apart
determined
example
particular
class
member
entitled
backpay
denial
increased
pay
promotion
product
discrimination
employee
might
collaterally
estopped
independently
seeking
compensatory
damages
based
denial
possibility
underscores
need
plaintiffs
individual
monetary
claims
decide
whether
tie
fates
class
representatives
go
alone
choice
rule
ensure
predominance
test
also
require
district
reevaluate
roster
class
members
continually
ninth
circuit
recognized
necessity
concluded
plaintiffs
longer
employed
lack
standing
seek
injunctive
declaratory
relief
employment
practices
appeals
response
difficulty
however
eliminate
former
employees
certified
class
eliminate
left
company
employ
date
complaint
filed
solution
logical
connection
problem
since
left
jobs
since
complaint
filed
need
prospective
relief
left
beforehand
consequence
even
though
validity
class
depends
whether
final
injunctive
relief
corresponding
declaratory
relief
appropriate
respecting
class
whole
rule
emphasis
added
half
members
class
approved
ninth
circuit
claim
injunctive
declaratory
relief
course
alternative
logical
solution
excising
plaintiffs
class
leave
employment
may
struck
appeals
wasteful
district
time
indeed
since
backpay
action
properly
certified
class
treatment
ability
litigate
plaintiff
backpay
claim
part
class
turn
irrelevant
question
whether
still
employed
follows
however
arbitrary
limitation
class
membership
imposed
backpay
claims
certified
rule
finally
respondents
argue
backpay
claims
appropriate
class
action
backpay
award
equitable
nature
latter
may
true
irrelevant
rule
speak
equitable
remedies
generally
injunctions
declaratory
judgments
title
vii
makes
pellucidly
clear
backpay
neither
see
ii
distinguishing
declaratory
relief
payment
backpay
see
allison
citgo
petroleum
fifth
circuit
held
class
permit
certification
monetary
relief
incidental
requested
injunctive
declaratory
relief
defined
damages
flow
directly
liability
class
whole
claims
forming
basis
injunctive
declaratory
relief
view
incidental
damage
require
additional
hearings
resolve
disparate
merits
individual
case
neither
introduce
new
substantial
legal
factual
issues
entail
complex
individualized
determinations
ibid
need
decide
case
whether
forms
incidental
monetary
relief
consistent
interpretation
rule
announced
comply
due
process
clause
respondents
argue
satisfy
standard
event
contrary
ninth
circuit
view
entitled
individualized
determinations
employee
eligibility
backpay
title
vii
includes
detailed
remedial
scheme
plaintiff
prevails
showing
employer
discriminated
violation
statute
may
enjoin
respondent
unlawful
employment
practice
order
affirmative
action
may
appropriate
including
reinstatement
hiring
employees
without
backpay
equitable
relief
deems
appropriate
employer
show
took
adverse
employment
action
employee
reason
discrimination
order
hiring
reinstatement
promotion
individual
employee
payment
backpay
established
procedure
trying
cases
gives
effect
statutory
requirements
plaintiff
seeks
individual
relief
reinstatement
backpay
establishing
pattern
practice
discrimination
district
must
usually
conduct
additional
proceedings
determine
scope
individual
relief
teamsters
phase
burden
proof
shift
company
right
raise
individual
affirmative
defenses
may
demonstrate
individual
applicant
denied
employment
opportunity
lawful
reasons
appeals
believed
possible
replace
proceedings
trial
formula
sample
set
class
members
selected
liability
sex
discrimination
backpay
owing
result
determined
depositions
supervised
master
percentage
claims
determined
valid
applied
entire
remaining
class
number
presumptively
valid
claims
thus
derived
multiplied
average
backpay
award
sample
set
arrive
entire
class
recovery
without
individualized
proceedings
disapprove
novel
project
rules
enabling
act
forbids
interpreting
rule
abridge
enlarge
modify
substantive
right
see
ortiz
class
certified
premise
entitled
litigate
statutory
defenses
individual
claims
necessity
litigation
prevent
backpay
incidental
classwide
injunction
respondents
class
certified
even
assuming
arguendo
incidental
monetary
relief
awarded
class
judgment
appeals
reversed
stores
petitioner
betty
dukes
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
june
justice
ginsburg
justice
breyer
justice
sotomayor
justice
kagan
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
class
case
agree
certified
federal
rule
civil
procedure
plaintiffs
alleging
discrimination
violation
title
vii
et
seek
monetary
relief
merely
incidental
injunctive
declaratory
relief
might
available
see
ante
putative
class
type
may
certifiable
rule
plaintiffs
show
common
class
tions
predominate
issues
affecting
individuals
qualification
amount
backpay
compensatory
damages
class
action
superior
modes
adjudication
whether
class
plaintiffs
describe
meets
specific
requirements
rule
reserve
matter
consideration
decision
however
disqualifies
class
starting
gate
holding
plaintiffs
cross
commonality
line
set
rule
ruling
imports
rule
determination
concerns
properly
addressed
rule
assessment
rule
establishes
preliminary
requirement
maintaining
class
action
questions
law
fact
common
class
rule
require
questions
law
fact
raised
litigation
common
newberg
conte
newberg
class
actions
pp
ed
indeed
ven
single
question
law
fact
common
members
class
satisfy
commonality
requirement
nagareda
preexistence
principle
structure
class
action
colum
rev
see
advisory
committee
notes
fed
rule
civ
proc
citing
approval
cases
question
law
fact
common
class
members
question
ordinarily
understood
subject
point
open
controversy
american
heritage
dictionary
ed
see
also
black
law
dictionary
ed
defining
question
fact
disputed
issue
resolved
trial
question
law
issue
decided
judge
thus
question
common
class
must
dispute
either
fact
law
resolution
advance
determination
class
members
district
recognizing
one
significant
common
class
may
sufficient
warrant
nd
cal
found
plaintiffs
easily
met
test
absent
error
law
abuse
discretion
appellate
tribunal
warrant
upset
district
finding
commonality
see
califano
yamasaki
ost
issues
arising
rule
committed
first
instance
discretion
district
district
certified
class
women
employed
domestic
retail
store
time
since
december
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
named
plaintiffs
led
betty
dukes
propose
litigate
behalf
class
allegations
discriminates
basis
gender
pay
promotions
allege
company
eli
es
gender
stereotypes
making
employment
decisions
promotion
pay
app
permits
prejudices
infect
personnel
decisions
plaintiffs
contend
leaving
pay
promotions
hands
nearly
male
managerial
workforce
using
arbitrary
subjective
criteria
ibid
alleged
barriers
advancement
female
employees
include
company
requirement
condition
promotion
management
jobs
employees
willing
relocate
absent
instruction
otherwise
risk
managers
act
familiar
assumption
women
services
husband
children
less
mobile
men
see
dept
labor
federal
glass
ceiling
commission
good
business
making
full
use
nation
human
capital
women
fill
percent
hourly
jobs
retailer
stores
make
percent
management
employees
higher
one
looks
organization
lower
percentage
women
plaintiffs
largely
uncontested
descriptive
statistics
also
show
women
working
company
stores
paid
less
men
every
region
salary
gap
widens
time
even
men
women
hired
jobs
time
ibid
cf
ledbetter
goodyear
tire
rubber
ginsburg
dissenting
district
identified
systems
promoting
employees
sufficiently
similar
across
regions
stores
conclude
manner
systems
affect
class
raises
issues
common
class
members
selection
employees
promotion
management
fairly
characterized
shoulder
process
managers
discretion
whose
shoulders
tap
vacancies
regularly
posted
among
employees
satisfying
minimum
qualifications
managers
choose
promote
basis
subjective
impressions
ibid
compensation
policies
also
operate
uniformly
across
stores
district
found
retailer
leaves
open
band
every
position
hourly
pay
rate
provides
standards
criteria
setting
wages
within
band
thus
nothing
counter
unconscious
bias
part
supervisors
see
supervisors
make
discretionary
decisions
vacuum
district
reviewed
means
used
maintain
carefully
constructed
corporate
culture
frequent
meetings
reinforce
common
way
thinking
regular
transfers
managers
stores
ensure
uniformity
throughout
company
monitoring
stores
close
basis
tv
broadcas
stores
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
plaintiffs
evidence
including
class
members
tales
suggests
gender
bias
suffused
company
culture
among
illustrations
senior
management
often
refer
female
associates
little
janie
qs
plaintiffs
motion
class
certification
nd
cal
doc
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
one
manager
told
employee
en
make
career
women
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
committee
female
executives
concluded
tereotypes
limit
opportunities
offered
women
plaintiffs
motion
class
certification
nd
cal
doc
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
finally
plaintiffs
presented
expert
appraisal
show
pay
promotions
disparities
explained
gender
discrimination
neutral
variables
using
regression
analyses
expert
richard
drogin
controlled
factors
including
inter
alia
job
performance
length
time
company
store
employee
worked
results
district
found
sufficient
raise
inference
discrimination
district
identification
common
question
whether
pay
promotions
policies
gave
rise
unlawful
discrimination
hardly
infirm
practice
delegating
supervisors
large
discretion
make
personnel
decisions
uncontrolled
formal
standards
long
known
potential
produce
disparate
effects
managers
like
humankind
may
prey
biases
risk
discrimination
heightened
managers
predominantly
one
sex
steeped
corporate
culture
perpetuates
gender
stereotypes
plaintiffs
allegations
resemble
one
prototypical
cases
area
leisner
new
york
tel
supp
sdny
deciding
promotions
supervisors
case
start
objective
measures
ultimately
look
individual
total
individual
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
final
question
ask
answer
person
going
successful
business
ibid
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
hardly
surprising
many
managers
ideal
candidate
someone
characteristics
similar
held
discretionary
employment
practices
give
rise
title
vii
claims
practices
motivated
discriminatory
intent
also
produce
discriminatory
results
see
watson
fort
worth
bank
trust
see
ante
roving
discretionary
system
produced
disparity
watson
employer
given
managers
large
authority
promotions
employee
sued
bank
title
vii
alleging
discretionary
promotion
system
caused
discriminatory
effect
based
race
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
four
different
supervisors
declined
separate
occasions
promote
employee
reasons
subjective
unknown
employer
noted
developed
precise
formal
criteria
evaluating
candidates
relied
instead
subjective
judgment
supervisors
ibid
aware
problem
subconscious
stereotypes
prejudices
held
employer
undisciplined
system
subjective
decisionmaking
employment
practic
may
analyzed
disparate
impact
approach
see
also
wards
cove
packing
atonio
recognizing
use
decision
employment
practic
subject
attack
plaintiffs
allegations
state
claims
gender
discrimination
form
biased
decisionmaking
pay
promotions
evidence
reviewed
district
adequately
demonstrated
resolving
claims
necessitate
examination
particular
policies
practices
alleged
affect
adversely
globally
women
employed
stores
rule
setting
necessary
sufficient
criterion
certification
demands
nothing
ii
gives
credence
key
dispute
common
class
whether
discretionary
pay
motion
policies
discriminatory
see
ante
citing
questions
like
giving
managers
discretion
pay
unlawful
employment
practice
sufficient
obtain
class
matters
asserts
raising
common
whether
issimilarities
within
proposed
class
potential
impede
generation
common
answers
ante
quoting
nagareda
class
certification
age
aggregate
proof
rev
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
blends
rule
threshold
criterion
demanding
criteria
rule
thereby
elevates
inquiry
longer
easily
satisfied
moore
et
moore
federal
practice
ed
rule
certification
requires
addition
four
findings
questions
law
fact
common
class
members
predominate
questions
affecting
individual
members
class
action
superior
available
methods
adjudicating
controversy
emphasis
differences
class
members
mimics
rule
inquiry
whether
common
questions
predominate
individual
issues
asking
whether
individual
differences
impede
common
adjudication
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
duplicates
question
whether
class
action
superior
modes
adjudication
indeed
professor
nagareda
whose
dissimilarities
inquiry
endorses
developed
position
context
rule
see
rule
requires
decisive
degree
similarity
across
proposed
class
speaks
common
individual
ones
rule
predominance
inquiry
meant
tes
whether
proposed
classes
sufficiently
cohesive
warrant
adjudication
representation
amchem
products
windsor
courts
must
conduct
dissimilarities
analysis
rule
stage
mission
remains
rule
rule
also
prerequisite
rule
rule
classes
dissimilarities
position
far
reaching
individual
differences
bar
rule
rule
class
long
rule
threshold
met
see
amchem
products
rule
predominance
requirement
yamasaki
rule
action
noted
unlikely
differences
factual
background
claim
affect
outcome
legal
issue
example
franks
bowman
transp
rule
class
truckdrivers
complained
defendant
discriminatorily
refused
hire
black
applicants
recognized
qualification
performance
individual
class
members
might
vary
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
generalizations
concerning
individually
applicable
evidence
cautioned
serve
justification
denial
injunctive
relief
entire
class
ibid
dissimilarities
approach
leads
train
attention
distinguishes
individual
class
members
rather
unites
given
lack
standards
pay
promotions
majority
says
demonstrating
invalidity
one
manager
use
discretion
nothing
demonstrate
invalidity
another
ante
delegation
discretion
pay
promotions
policy
uniform
throughout
stores
nature
discretion
people
exercise
various
ways
system
delegated
discretion
watson
held
practice
actionable
title
vii
produces
discriminatory
outcomes
see
supra
finding
pay
promotions
practices
fact
violate
law
first
step
usual
order
proof
plaintiffs
seeking
individual
remedies
discrimination
teamsters
see
albemarle
paper
moody
individual
employee
unique
circumstances
ultimately
determine
whether
entitled
backpay
damages
barring
backpay
plaintiff
refused
advancement
reason
discrimination
factor
rule
determination
errs
importing
dissimilarities
notion
suited
rule
rule
commonality
inquiry
therefore
join
part
ii
opinion
footnotes
complaint
included
seven
named
plaintiffs
three
remain
part
certified
class
narrowed
appeals
rule
allows
class
maintained
prosecuting
separate
actions
individual
class
members
create
risk
either
inconsistent
varying
adjudications
adjudications
practical
matter
dispositive
interests
members
parties
individual
adjudications
substantially
impair
impeded
ability
protect
interests
rule
class
may
maintained
questions
law
fact
common
class
members
predominate
questions
affecting
individual
members
class
action
superior
available
methods
fairly
efficiently
adjudicating
controversy
applicability
provisions
plaintiff
class
us
district
excluded
backpay
claims
based
promotion
opportunities
publicly
posted
reason
applicant
data
exist
positions
nd
cal
also
decided
afford
class
members
notice
action
right
class
respect
respondents
claim
enable
result
appeals
trimmed
class
two
ways
first
remanded
part
certification
order
included
respondents
claim
class
district
might
consider
whether
might
cause
monetary
relief
predominate
second
accepted
part
argument
since
class
members
longer
employed
standing
seek
injunctive
declaratory
relief
monetary
claims
must
predominate
excluded
certified
class
putative
class
members
longer
employees
time
plaintiffs
complaint
filed
emphasis
added
previously
stated
context
commonality
typicality
requirements
rule
tend
merge
serve
guideposts
determining
whether
particular
circumstances
maintenance
class
action
economical
whether
named
plaintiff
claim
class
claims
interrelated
interests
class
members
fairly
adequately
protected
absence
requirements
therefore
also
tend
merge
requirement
although
latter
requirement
also
raises
concerns
competency
class
counsel
conflicts
interest
general
telephone
southwest
falcon
light
disposition
commonality
question
however
unnecessary
resolve
whether
respondents
satisfied
typicality
requirements
rule
statement
one
prior
cases
eisen
carlisle
jacquelin
sometimes
mistakenly
cited
contrary
find
nothing
either
language
history
rule
gives
authority
conduct
preliminary
inquiry
merits
suit
order
determine
whether
may
maintained
class
action
case
judge
conducted
preliminary
inquiry
merits
suit
order
determine
propriety
certification
rules
already
done
see
order
shift
cost
notice
required
rule
plaintiff
defendants
extent
quoted
statement
goes
beyond
permissibility
merits
inquiry
pretrial
purpose
purest
dictum
contradicted
cases
perhaps
common
example
considering
merits
question
rule
stage
arises
suits
securities
fraud
rule
requirement
questions
law
fact
common
class
members
predominate
questions
affecting
individual
members
often
insuperable
barrier
class
certification
since
individual
investors
prove
reliance
alleged
misrepresentation
problem
dissipates
plaintiffs
establish
applicability
fraud
market
presumption
says
traders
purchase
stock
efficient
market
presumed
relied
accuracy
company
public
statements
invoke
presumption
plaintiffs
seeking
certification
must
prove
shares
traded
efficient
market
erica
john
fund
halliburton
slip
issue
surely
prove
trial
order
make
case
merits
case
plaintiff
tries
establish
preponderance
evidence
discrimination
company
standard
operating
procedure
regular
rather
unusual
practice
teamsters
see
also
franks
bowman
transp
succeeds
showing
support
rebuttable
inference
class
members
victims
discriminatory
practice
justify
award
prospective
relief
injunctive
order
continuation
discriminatory
practice
teamsters
supra
bielby
conclusions
case
elicited
criticism
scholars
whose
conclusions
relies
analysis
see
monahan
walker
mitchell
contextual
evidence
gender
discrimination
ascendance
social
frameworks
rev
bielby
research
conditions
meet
standards
expected
social
scientific
research
stereotyping
discrimination
social
framework
necessarily
contains
general
statements
reliable
patterns
relations
among
variables
goes
bielby
claimed
present
social
framework
testified
social
facts
specific
bielby
report
provides
verifiable
method
measuring
testing
variables
crucial
conclusions
reflects
nothing
bielby
judgment
general
stereotyping
research
applied
managers
across
stores
nationwide
class
period
dissent
says
adopted
rule
discrimination
claim
accompanied
anecdotes
must
supply
numbers
proportionate
size
class
post
ginsburg
concurring
part
dissenting
part
quite
accurate
discrimination
claimant
free
supply
anecdotes
wishes
claim
company
operates
general
policy
discrimination
anecdotes
selected
literally
millions
employment
decisions
prove
nothing
reason
force
dissent
attempt
distinguish
falcon
ground
case
common
questions
law
fact
claims
lead
plaintiff
applicant
class
post
quoting
falcon
burger
concurring
part
dissenting
part
also
nothing
unite
plaintiffs
claims
since
contrary
dissent
contention
post
employment
practices
touch
concern
members
class
rule
applies
separate
actions
individual
class
members
create
risk
establish
ing
incompatible
standards
conduct
party
opposing
class
rule
party
obliged
law
treat
members
class
alike
amchem
products
windsor
individual
adjudications
practical
matter
dispositive
interests
members
parties
individual
adjudications
substantially
impair
impede
ability
protect
interests
rule
fund
cases
numerous
persons
make
claims
fund
insufficient
satisfy
claims
amchem
supra
footnotes
plaintiffs
requested
rule
certification
alternative
request
certification
fail
plaintiffs
motion
class
certification
nd
cal
doc
rule
lists
three
threshold
requirements
certification
class
numerous
joinder
members
impracticable
claims
defenses
representative
parties
typical
claims
defenses
class
representative
parties
fairly
adequately
protect
interests
class
numerosity
requirement
clearly
met
contend
otherwise
reach
typicality
adequacy
requirements
ante
discuss
either
simply
record
agreement
district
resolution
issues
suggests
rule
must
mean
says
see
ante
word
questions
taken
literally
majority
asserts
plaintiffs
pass
rule
bar
eciting
questions
like
us
plaintiffs
indeed
work
ante
sensibly
read
however
word
questions
means
disputed
issues
utterance
crafted
grammatical
form
question
majority
purports
derive
teamsters
rule
discrimination
claim
accompanied
anecdotes
must
supply
numbers
proportionate
size
class
ante
teamsters
acknowledges
see
ante
instructs
statistical
evidence
alone
may
suffice
decision
hardly
said
establish
numerical
floor
anecdotal
evidence
taken
account
asserts
drogin
showed
average
differences
regional
national
level
male
female
employees
ante
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
fact
regression
analyses
showed
disparities
within
stores
majority
contention
contrary
reflects
arcane
disagreement
statistical
method
district
resolved
plaintiffs
favor
nd
cal
appellate
review
occasion
disturb
trial
handling
factual
disputes
order
example
vividly
illustrates
subjective
decisionmaking
vehicle
discrimination
performing
symphony
orchestras
long
male
preserve
goldin
rouse
orchestrating
impartiality
impact
blind
auditions
female
musicians
econ
rev
orchestras
began
hiring
musicians
auditions
open
comers
reviewers
judge
applicants
solely
musical
abilities
yet
subconscious
bias
led
reviewers
disfavor
women
orchestras
permitted
reviewers
see
applicants
hired
far
fewer
female
musicians
orchestras
conducted
blind
auditions
candidates
played
behind
opaque
screens
places
considerable
weight
general
telephone
southwest
falcon
ante
case
little
relevance
question
today
lead
plaintiff
falcon
alleged
discrimination
evidenced
company
failure
promote
employees
failure
hire
applicants
common
questions
law
fact
claims
lead
plaintiff
applicant
class
burger
concurring
part
dissenting
part
emphasis
added
alleged
discriminated
intentionally
applicant
class
claims
contrast
advanced
impact
theory
appropriate
facially
neutral
practices
commonality
wa
respondent
seeks
represent
class
ibid
practices
touch
concern
members
class
class
action
may
maintained
rule
satisfied
prosecuting
separate
actions
individual
class
members
create
risk
inconsistent
varying
adjudications
adjudications
respect
individual
class
members
practical
matter
dispositive
interests
members
party
opposing
class
acted
refused
act
grounds
apply
generally
class
final
injunctive
relief
appropriate
respecting
class
whole
finds
questions
law
fact
common
class
members
predominate
questions
affecting
individual
members
class
action
superior
available
methods
fairly
efficiently
adjudicating
controversy
fed
rule
civ
proc
paragraph
breaks
added
cf
supra
rule
commonality
prerequisite
satisfied
ven
single
question
common
members
class
quoting
nagareda
preexistence
principle
structure
class
action
colum
rev