In both Dukes and McReynolds, the plaintiffs alleged racial discrimination and sought injunctive relief. However, McReynolds was distinct because in Wal-Mart, “there was no company-wide policy to challenge . . . there was no common issue to justify class treatment.” Here, two company-wide policies were challenged: “the company’s ‘teaming’ policy and its ‘account distribution’ policy.” Additionally, unlike in Wal-Mart, here plaintiffs sought certification only of disparate impact claims (which do not require a showing of intent nor permit recovery of compensatory or punitive damages). The Court held that liability issues presented by the disparate impact claims in McReynolds would be more efficiently determined in a single, class proceeding even though subsequent proceedings to determine damages may be complicated and may require individual determinations.
The full opinion can be found at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/G20U9NSI.pdf