Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1


Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,572|Likes:
Published by Sean Martin
March 31, 2014 Opinion from U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Stephanie Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
March 31, 2014 Opinion from U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Stephanie Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

More info:

Published by: Sean Martin on Apr 01, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





No. 13-10037 STEPHANIE ODLE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. WAL-MART STORES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Before WIENER, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Stephanie Odle was an original member of the class of plaintiffs in
 Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
 “one of the most expansive class actions ever” certified in the United States.
 After many years of litigation over class certification, the Supreme Court decertified
 Civil Action No. 01-2252 (N.D. Cal.). Odle and Wal-Mart request that we take judicial notice of the district court record in
. We may do so because the “fact that a judicial action was taken is indisputable and is therefore amenable to judicial notice.”
Sepulvado v. Jindal
, 739 F.3d 716, 719 n.3 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citing
Gray ex rel. Rudd v. Beverly Enters.-Miss., Inc.
, 390 F.3d 400, 408 n.7 (5th Cir. 2004); Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 21B
Fed. Prac. & Proc.
 § 5106.4 (2d ed. & Supp. 2012); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)).
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes
, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2546 (2011).
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
March 31, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk
Case: 13-10037 Document: 00512578914 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2014
No. 13-30691 the
class in June 2011.
 Odle then filed the instant putative class action in the Northern District of Texas (“the Texas district court”). That court dismissed Odle’s individual claims, concluding that they had ceased to be tolled and thus were time barred. As we hold that, under
 American Pipe
 and its progeny, the relevant statute of limitations remained tolled when Odle filed her complaint in this case, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent herewith.
The Northern District of California
 In November 1991, Odle went to work for Wal-Mart as an hourly sales associate at its Sam’s Club store in Lubbock, Texas.
 Over the next several years, Odle was transferred to a succession of Sam’s Club stores in Texas, California, and Nevada, taking on more and more responsibility within the company. When, in October 1998, Odle was transferred back to Texas as an assistant manager, she informed her superiors that she wanted to be promoted to a management position as soon as there was an opening for such. Not long thereafter, Wal-Mart terminated Odle’s employment. In October 1999, Odle timely filed a charge of sex discrimination against Wal-Mart with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). The EEOC issued Odle a right-to-sue notice in May 2001. The next month, Odle and several other named plaintiffs timely filed
 in the Northern District of California (“the California district court”).
 at 2556-57.
 Am. Pipe & Constr. Co. v. Utah
, 414 U.S. 538 (1974).
 Wal-Mart owns and operates Sam’s Club stores.
 Betty Dukes filed the original complaint
 pro se
on June 3, 2001. She filed her first amended complaint approximately two weeks later, adding five women, including Odle, as named
Case: 13-10037 Document: 00512578914 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2014
No. 13-30691 plaintiffs alleged,
inter alia
, that Wal-Mart maintained discriminatory pay and promotion policies in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
et seq.
 (“Title VII”). Seeking class status for their Title VII claims, the
 plaintiffs filed a motion for certification under Rule 23(b)(2), or, in the alternative, under Rule 23(b)(3), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
 As the California district
 Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26411, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2001). The California district court later dismissed Odle as a named plaintiff because she did not satisfy Title VII’s special venue requirements, as the case was proceeding in the Northern District of California; she nevertheless remained an absent
class member.
See Dukes
, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26411, at *32-33.
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b) provides in pertinent part:  A class action may be maintained if Rule 23(a) is satisfied and if: . . . (2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole; or (3) the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy. The matters pertinent to these findings include: (A) the class members’ interests in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions; (B) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the controversy already begun by or against class members; (C) the desirability or undesirability of concentrating the litigation of the claims in the particular forum; and
Case: 13-10037 Document: 00512578914 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2014

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->