Also known as: predominances · predominate · predominates · predominated · predominating · predominant · predominance test · predominant commonality
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
3 senses
A requirement for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class members outweigh any questions affecting only individual members.
A requirement for class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) that questions of law or fact common to class members outweigh any questions affecting only individual members.
The condition in which race serves as the controlling factor in drawing electoral district lines and subordinates traditional districting principles such as compactness and respect for political subdivisions.
The condition in which state-law claims substantially outweigh the federal claims over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction.
The condition in which race serves as the controlling factor in drawing electoral district lines and subordinates traditional districting principles such as compactness and respect for political subdivisions.
The condition in which state-law claims substantially outweigh the federal claims over which a district court possesses original jurisdiction.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Peter Park and hundreds of other delivery drivers sued Prime Logistics alleging systematic underpayment of overtime. The drivers shared identical pay policies and timekeeping systems across all terminals. Because those common policies would resolve liability for the entire group in one stroke, the court found predominance satisfied and certified the class.
Priya Prasad, licensed in two states, drafted a contract while physically present in State A but the transaction closed and affected clients in State B. Because the predominant effect of the conduct occurred in State B, the ethics rules of State B governed the disciplinary proceeding.
Pearl Porter sought to represent a nationwide class of retail employees alleging discriminatory pay practices at Wal-Mart. The evidence showed pay decisions occurred at thousands of individual stores with varying local managers. Because individual questions overwhelmed the common ones, the court denied certification.
In 2001, three current or former female employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.—Betty Dukes, Christine Kwapnoski, and Edith Arana—filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California alleging that the company had discriminated against them and other women in pay and promotions. Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer with approximately 3,400 stores across the country and more than one million employees, delegated pay and promotion decisions to local store managers who exercised broad discretion in a largely subjective manner. The plaintiffs claimed that this discretion was exercised disproportionately in favor of men, resulting in lower pay and fewer promotions for female employees. They sought to represent a class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female employees who had worked at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store since December 26, 1998. To support their motion for class certification, the plaintiffs presented statistical evidence from experts Dr. Richard Drogin and Dr. Marc Bendick showing pay and promotion disparities between men and women, anecdotal evidence consisting of about 120 affidavits from female employees describing discriminatory experiences at only 235 of the company's 3,400 stores, and the testimony of sociologist Dr. William Bielby who analyzed Wal-Mart’s corporate culture. Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburg, California store in 1994 as a cashier and was later promoted to customer service manager before being demoted; she alleged retaliation and that male greeters were paid more. Christine Kwapnoski worked at Sam’s Club stores and claimed a male manager yelled at female employees and told her to “doll up.” Edith Arana worked at a Duarte, California store from 1995 to 2001. She was denied opportunities for management training despite repeated requests. The District Court certified the class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2), finding that the plaintiffs had presented significant evidence of a company-wide pattern of discrimination. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, substantially affirmed the certification order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the class certification was consistent with Rule 23(a) and (b)(2).
View case2 common questions
Commonality asks only whether common questions exist. Predominance requires that those common questions outweigh individual ones so that classwide adjudication advances the litigation.
Supporting sources
No. Predominance is satisfied when common issues form the central disputed questions even if some individualized damages calculations remain.
Phoebe Park challenged a new legislative map that connected distant majority-minority neighborhoods while splitting counties and ignoring compactness. Internal records showed staff received instructions to hit a fixed racial quota. Because race overrode traditional criteria, the court applied strict scrutiny and invalidated the plan.
Phuong Pham sued after a redistricting plan created an oddly shaped district that linked distant minority communities while crossing multiple county lines. Legislative history revealed a directive to maximize majority-minority districts. Because race predominated over compactness and political boundaries, the plan failed strict scrutiny.
1 common questions
Plaintiffs must demonstrate that race was the controlling factor and that traditional districting principles such as compactness and respect for political subdivisions were subordinated to racial considerations.
Supporting sources
Pavel Petrov filed a federal copyright claim against Pulse Media and added numerous state-law construction-defect counts arising from the same building project. The state claims required extensive expert testimony and involved many additional local parties. Because the state issues substantially predominated, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.
1 common questions
A court may decline when the state-law claims substantially predominate over the federal claims in terms of scope, complexity, or proof required.
Supporting sources
…a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton, writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide. But the later and predominant view, following the great common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a lesser offense. In a frequently cited passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman "quick with…