Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 8 of 8

Full-Text Articles in Law

Class Actions, Indivisibility, And Rule 23(B)(2), Maureen Carroll Jan 2019

Class Actions, Indivisibility, And Rule 23(B)(2), Maureen Carroll

Articles

The federal class-action rule contains a provision, Rule 23(b)(2), that authorizes class-wide injunctive or declaratory relief for class-wide wrongs. The procedural needs of civil rights litigation motivated the adoption of the provision in 1966, and in the intervening years, it has played an important role in managing efforts to bring about systemic change. At the same time, courts have sometimes struggled to articulate what plaintiffs must show in order to invoke Rule 23(b)(2). A few years ago, the Supreme Court weighed in, stating that the key to this type of class action is the “indivisible” nature of the remedy the …


The Impact Of Wal-Mart V. Dukes On Employment Discrimination Class Actions Five Years Out: A Forecast That Suggests More Of A Wave Than A Tsunami, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2017

The Impact Of Wal-Mart V. Dukes On Employment Discrimination Class Actions Five Years Out: A Forecast That Suggests More Of A Wave Than A Tsunami, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.


A Diamond In The Rough: Trans-Substantivity Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And Its Detrimental Impact On Civil Rights, Suzette Malveaux Jan 2014

A Diamond In The Rough: Trans-Substantivity Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure And Its Detrimental Impact On Civil Rights, Suzette Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.


The Power And Promise Of Procedure: Examining The Class Action Landscape After Wal-Mart V. Dukes, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2013

The Power And Promise Of Procedure: Examining The Class Action Landscape After Wal-Mart V. Dukes, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.


Plausibility Pleading And Employment Discrimination, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2012

Plausibility Pleading And Employment Discrimination, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.


How Goliath Won: The Future Implications Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2011

How Goliath Won: The Future Implications Of Dukes V. Wal-Mart, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

No abstract provided.


Class Actions At The Crossroads: An Answer To Wal-Mart V. Dukes, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2011

Class Actions At The Crossroads: An Answer To Wal-Mart V. Dukes, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear argument in the largest private-employer civil rights case in American history, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. This historic case involves up to 1.5 million women suing Wal-Mart, one of the largest companies in the world, for alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotions, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Like many employees who challenge companywide employment discrimination, the plaintiffs in Dukes brought their case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and sought injunctive and declaratory relief, …


Fighting To Keep Employment Discrimination Class Actions Alive: How Allison V. Citgo's Predomination Requirement Threatens To Undermine Title Vii Enforcement, Suzette M. Malveaux Jan 2005

Fighting To Keep Employment Discrimination Class Actions Alive: How Allison V. Citgo's Predomination Requirement Threatens To Undermine Title Vii Enforcement, Suzette M. Malveaux

Publications

The Civil Rights Act of 1991, which provides compensatory and punitive damages and attendant jury trials in cases alleging intentional discrimination, was designed to enhance enforcement and expand remedies. Its enactment, however, has triggered a schism among the circuit courts over what the proper standard is for determining whether monetary damages or injunctive relief predominates, a necessary inquiry for determining whether plaintiffs are entitled to class certification for Title VII claims under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Led by the Fifth Circuit, some federal appeals courts contend that monetary relief predominates unless it is “incidental,” and …