There are already dozens of interesting legal commentaries out there on Wal-Mart v. Dukes, released Monday. If you only have time for two right now, try these:
Pro-Wal-Mart (the majority decision): Walter Olson, Philadelphia Inquirer, "Reining in Frivolous Lawsuits". A snippet -- "The message of this ruling is simple: Employees have to prove that they have been legally wronged, not just cash in because somebody else was."
Pro-Dukes (the dissents): Joey Fishkin, Balkinization, "Wal-Mart v. Dukes and the Future of Meritocracy". A snippet -- "[T]he two most important questions the case raises are not so doctrinal. They are, first, what does this opinion mean for courts’ power to address forms of discrimination that are widespread and diffuse throughout an enterprise, rather than turning on the bias of a particular decision-maker? And second, ... what effect will this opinion have on the conversations among executives, HR departments, and the lawyers who advise them, about the use of subjective employment practices?
Or, catch the NYT's "Room for Debate: A Death Blow for Class Action?" on the case.
