Rule 23(a)(2) requires common questions. Under Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the question must generate a common answer capable of resolving an issue central to each claim in one stroke, rather than merely raising a shared topic.
A single common question can satisfy the requirement.
Alternative Names:
Commonality Requirement, Rule 23(a)(2)
Why it Matters?
Dukes converted commonality from a formality into a substantive requirement by demanding a common answer rather than a common question. That matters most where the challenged conduct was decentralized, since a policy of granting local discretion produces different answers for each decision-maker. Identifying whether a uniform policy or practice actually existed is the threshold inquiry, and its absence defeats certification regardless of how many claimants share a grievance.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
What did Dukes change?
Does one common question suffice?





