Hello, everyone.In its majority opinion, the court essentially said that if lawyers brought a nationwide class action against an employer, they would have to offer strong evidence of a nationwide practice or policy that hurt the class. In the Wal-Mart case, the court wrote that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Wal-Mart had any nationwide policies or practices that discriminated against women.
It seems "strong evidence of a nationwide practice or policy" is sufficient enough for a big company to be found losing a battle in a class action and a massive amount of money that follows it. I fail to see the point of the plaintiffs in question having to demonstrate evidence of "any nationwide policies or practices".
Or perhaps the reason may be that in the Wal-Mart case, the plaintiffs actually based their argument on their belief that more than one Wal-Mart policy or practice harmed its former and current employees, and here the writer merely means to report the facts.
I am not sure I understand your question exactly, but the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that such a nationwide policy (or policies) existed and didn't manage to do so. One would have been enough, but they didn't convince the majority of the court.
There was dissemination in many branches, but they failed to show that this stemmed from a central policy.