The Anti-Constitutional Culture of Class Action Law: An Expected Supreme Court Case Involving Wal-Mart May Radically Alter the American Legal Landscape

By Moller, Mark | Regulation, Summer 2007 | Go to article overview

The Anti-Constitutional Culture of Class Action Law: An Expected Supreme Court Case Involving Wal-Mart May Radically Alter the American Legal Landscape


Moller, Mark, Regulation


The culture of class action law discourages constitutional scrutiny of class action litigation. But that culture is fraying. The Supreme Court may pull the thread that unravels it in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a mammoth sex discrimination class action.

In 2000, Betty Dukes sued Wal-Mart under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleging gender discrimination. The suit grabbed headlines because of its posture: Dukes sought court approval of a class action seeking remedies for 1.5 million women who worked for Wal-Mart since 1998. Dukes claims the women, like her, lost promotions and pay because of their gender. The suit, in turn, threatens Wal-Mart with, according to some estimates, as much as $510 billion in punitive damages.

The trial court "certified" (that is, authorized) a class in 2004. On February 6, 2007, a three-member panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed class status by a 2-1 vote. It is the single largest class action certification in history.

Wal-Mart has requested that the full Ninth Circuit review the case--a preliminary step toward a request for review by the U.S. Supreme Court. In clever bid to enhance the chances of Supreme Court review, Wal-Mart's lawyers, led by Theodore Boutrous of Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, have challenged the constitutionality of "class-wide" punitive damage awards on this gargantuan scale. Wal-Mart's argument relies on Supreme Court decisions in BMW of North America v. Gore and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, which bar awards of punitive damages that are not proportional to compensatory damages assessed on an individual basis. Because plaintiffs do not seek compensatory damages, however, it is impossible to measure the ratio between punitive damages and compensatory damages, as the Supreme Court's cases require. Hence, Wal-Mart argues, those cases throw serious constitutional doubt on Dukes' punitive damages request.

While these arguments are worthy, Dukes, in its very scale and ambition, raises concerns that go well beyond the punitive damages precedents. Why are any class actions on the scale of Dukes constitutional? That is a question that is rarely, if ever, asked by serious students of the class action.

This constitutional know-nothing-ism is the product of three pervasive myths about the nature of class actions, with deep roots in the culture of class action litigation. The myths, however, are due for critical reassessment. If Wal-Mart successfully appeals to the Supreme Court and wins there, Wal-Mart's victory would set the stage for that critical reassessment.

MYTH 1: THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT RESTRAIN CIVIL "REMEDIES"

The first myth is perhaps the most invidious. Class action lawyers reflexively treat class actions as a discretionary "remedial" device that falls outside the scope of serious constitutional attention. The logic follows the "rights-remedy" distinction, a traditional way of legal thinking with roots in the 19th century. It goes like this: The Constitution cares about how "rights" are defined by courts in the constitutional context and how they are created by Congress in the legislative context. By contrast, "remedies" are a matter for judicial discretion; the Constitution simply does not constrain this power beyond guaranteeing parties minimal notice and a meaningful chance to participate in remedial proceedings. The rights-remedy distinction infects the debate over class actions, which are commonly viewed as a form of "remedy." The distinction is apparent in the Ninth Circuit's Dukes opinion, which shows a total lack of concern about the trial court's assertions of "broad" discretion to authorize class treatment.

Under current Supreme Court precedent, however, this distinction is not a very useful way of thinking about the class action. To see why, let us consider punitive damages in more detail. Punitive damages are also a "remedy," but one that, as we have discussed, receives heightened attention under the Due Process Clause.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

The Anti-Constitutional Culture of Class Action Law: An Expected Supreme Court Case Involving Wal-Mart May Radically Alter the American Legal Landscape
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.