lawsuits if they had brought individual suits instead of a class action. It was on that point that the Court distinguished Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011). In Wal-Mart, the class had failed to meet the more basic commonality requirement of class actions. The plaintiffs wanted to use representative evidence to show that there was a common policy of discretion in employment. However, in that case, since the employees were not similarly situated, they would not have been able to use the representative evidence even if they had brought individual lawsuits. In Tyson Foods, however, the representative evidence could be used to support a finding for individual plaintiffs. The Court noted that Tyson Foods did not challenge the expert testimony or the study on which the plaintiffs relied. Also, Tyson Foods argued that because not all class members would be found to be injured and receive compensation, the employees had to show a clear mechanism by which the district court could identify the class members who were not injured and so should not recover. That question was not presented in the lower courts, and the record was not developed on that point, however, so the Supreme Court remanded for further proceedings on that matter. Concurrence Chief Justice Roberts concurred, joined by Justice Alito in Part II. Part I suggested that the Court was not relaxing rules for representative evidence in this case but had found that the study met the required standard of proof. Part II expressed concern that there is no clear way to determine how much time the jury thought should be compensated for donning and doffing since it awarded a sum lower than the study suggested to ve appropriate. To be compensated, each employee must have gone uncompensated for some of the donning and doffing time and must have worked overtime once that time was factored in. However, since the jury did not report how much time they found should be compensated for the different departments, it is unclear how the district court would be able to award damages only to employees who were found by the jury found to be injured. Dissent Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Alito. The dissent believed the district court was wrong in finding that the class satisfied Rule 23's predominance requirement because it did not recognize that whether each employee worked overtime was a critical individual issue.