On December 6, 2010, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in what will eventually be known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The Supreme Court limited review to two issues, Question I from the Petition, and a second issue included by the Court. The Court said:
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to Question I presented by the petition. In addition to Question I, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: "Whether the class certification ordered under Rule 23(b)(2) was consistent with Rule 23(a)."
Question I from the Petition is as follows:
Whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)—which by its terms is limited to injunctive or corresponding declaratory relief—and, if so, under what circumstances.
Petition, at i. The Court declined to hear Question II, which asked, "Whether the certification order conforms to the requirements of Title VII, the Due Process Clause, the Seventh Amendment, the Rules Enabling Act, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23."
This decision could run the gamut from a highly fact-specific outcome, to a treatise on discrimination class actions, to a wholesale commentary on the Rule 23(a) requisites. Considering the scope of issues covered in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart en banc decision, it's very difficult to handicap this race.