Classified Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

SCOTUS Denies Review Regarding Pennsylvania Wal-Mart “Rest Break” Class Judgment

April 19, 2016 by David L. Luck and D. Matthew Allen

On April 4, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari review of a $188 million class-action judgment returned against Wal-Mart in Pennsylvania state court and later upheld by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court regarding claimed “rest break” and “meal break” violations. Only six plaintiffs testified on behalf of the class, and the plaintiffs’ experts used extrapolated evidence to calculate the total damages sustained (rather than actually determining the total damages based on each individual plaintiff’s claimed loss).

Despite Wal-Mart’s contentions that this “trial by formula” approach violated its constitutional rights and was in tension with Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), the Supreme Court declined to consider the case on the merits and, as is customary, did not specify why it did so. The seeming tension with Dukes appears to have arisen, in large part, from that decision’s holding that the Dukes plaintiffs’ statistical and anecdotal evidence regarding alleged class-wide discrimination was insufficient to prove discrimination as to the individual class members. Wal-Mart appears to have sought a similar ruling regarding these Pennsylvania plaintiffs’ extrapolated damages.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Braun, Nos. 14-1123 and 14-1124, — S.Ct. —-, 2016 WL 1278628 and 2016 WL 1278624 (Mem) (U.S. Apr. 4, 2016).

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

« Previous Article

Smooth Operators: Seventh Circuit Untangles Objections and Affirms Settlement of Hair Product Class

Next Article »

The Future of Class Actions: The Impact of Justice Scalia’s Death on Upcoming Rulings
Avatar

About David L. Luck

D. Matthew Allen

About D. Matthew Allen

Matt Allen is a shareholder at Carlton Fields in Tampa, Florida.

Get Weekly Updates!

2020 Class Action Survey – Now Available!

DOWNLOAD NOW
Carlton Fields Logo A blog focused on the latest class action developments and trends by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Search

Topics

Industries/Practices
  • Construction
  • Consumer Finance & Banking
  • Food & Beverage
  • Health Care
  • Insurance
  • Labor, Employment & ERISA
  • Manufacturing & Products
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Privacy & Technology
  • Securities
  • Telecommunications

Substantive/Procedural
  • Arbitration
  • CAFA
  • Certification
    • Adequacy
    • Ascertainability
    • Commonality
    • Numerosity
    • Predominance
    • Superiority
    • Typicality
  • Decertification
  • Settlements
  • Standing
  • Striking of Class Allegations

Courts/Jurisdiction
  • Federal District Courts
  • Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal
  • United States Supreme Court
  • State Courts

Monthly Archives

Recent Articles

  • MDL Court Denies Class Certification of Proposed “NAS Babies” Class
  • What’s Good for Trial Is Good for Class Certification: Fifth Circuit Rules That Daubert Applies at Class Certification Stage
  • One Game, One Stadium: Eleventh Circuit Spikes Collateral Challenge to Tampa Bay Buccaneers Proposed Class Action Settlement

Get Weekly Updates!

Carlton Fields

  • carltonfields.com
  • Practices
  • Industries
  • Class Action Survey

Related Industries/Practices

  • National Class Actions
  • National Trial Practice
  • Appellate & Trial Support
  • Our Class Action Experience

Classified: The Class Action Blog

  • All Topics
  • Contributors
  • About
  • Contact

Classified Logo
© 2014–2021 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Privacy Policy · Disclaimer

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.