WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation’s biggest companies.
The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.
The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.
So did all of them agree or was there a 5-4 vote? It can’t be both. Basically the Supreme Court tacitly approved gender discrimination with a ‘too big to sue’ statement. It might hurt business. It might hurt Walmart.
Does that mean its ok to pay women differently? Should they not be promoted the same way men who work for Walmart are promoted? Should they not be paid the same salary for the same work or get raises on the same scale men do? What is Walmart afraid of?
Walmart and other businesses need to be sent a strong message that discrimination is unacceptable. I am not sure how to do it. Some of us won’t go into a Walmart. I also won’t go inside a local Home Depot because the male workers ignore women customers. That’s the only way I know to send a message that business practices are unacceptable. It is probably wise to sent an email to corporate to tell home office why you don’t shop at the local retail stores also.
The original complainants can still pursue their claim but they cannot move forward in a massive class action lawsuit.
“Basically the Supreme Court tacitly approved gender discrimination with a ‘too big to sue’ statement”
That statement is 100% completely false. The decision just says that the class action suit was too large. Each and every female who felt like they were discriminated against can sue.
Was gender discrimiation allowed to stand? yes.
Did they send a ‘too big to sue’ statement? yes.
You are 100% full of it.
If any woman wants to pursue the case, she can. Well, how long will that take and how much will it cost? Did anything change? No. Do you think unequal pay for equal work is gender bias? Most people do.
Taken from SCOTUSBlog to address the 9-0, 5-4 question above.
The part of the ruling dealing with the commonality requirement was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented on that facet of the ruling, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
The dissenters argued that the evidence the women’s lawyers had offered “suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s company culture.” Their evidence also indicated that the differences in pay and promotions between women and men workers could only be explained by bias, not “neutral variables,” the dissenters added, leaving the clear impression that the dissenters agreed with that assessment.
Repeatedly, the dissenting opinion offered positive reactions to the women’s claims of how the Wal-Mart “corporate culture” actually worked to bolster discretion at the store level, with that discretion exercised predominantly by men influenced by a culture of discrimination.
The part of the ruling that had the support of all of the Justices declared that the section of Rule 23 that permits class-action requests for injunctions or declaratory rulings does not generally allow claims for money payments, such as backpay in a workplace bias case, unless that kind of remedy is merely incidental to the type of court orders that section authorizes.
Because of the Court’s ruling on the “commonality” question, closing the class-action claim against Wal-Mart, this second part of the decision had little practical impact other than clarifying when a class-action lawsuit could pursue a money remedy. The dissenters said they would have left the Wal-Mart women with a further opportunity to try a different section of Rule 23 for their backpay claim, but the majority had scuttled that by ending the class-action case altogether.
Full article available at
http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/opinion-analysis-wal-marts-two-messages/
Thanks for that clarification, Marin. I couldn’t figure out how the some/all thing was working.
It sounds to me like Walmart needs to clean up its act. Too big to sue might only be temporary.
As unfair as I think gender bias is, I believe this case had the potential of totally ruining Walmart.
Hopefully, they will heed the message.
The problem with the arguement that the plantiffs had – if I could dumb it down – is that they’re going on the idea that all women are discriminated against at Wal-Mart. How do they prove that?
It’s like saying that all hispanics are illegals.
Just doesn’t make sense. Some in the US are legal aliens. Some are illegal. Some are citizens. They each have a story unique to themselves. Some may ‘share’ the same story with others but as a hispanic race they are not all illegals. They are all not citizens. They are all not legal aliens.
I think the case fails because it tries to make too large of a class.
If you have even one woman that’s an Executive or a Manager.. doesn’t that break the paradigm of the class the lawyers dreamt up?
On the face of it; it just doesn’t make sense.
As a lower-court justice wrote: “have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit.”
I am not so sure I disagree with you. I have mixed feelings. But…it is gender discrimination and it wasn’t fixed yet. How do you send a message to Walmart? don’t go in their store.
Its an interesting question, for sure.
No doubt. If women feel strongly that they are being discriminated against by all means stop spending money in a Wal-Mart.
With the majority of household financial decisions made by women that could have a potentially crippling effect on the company.
That would enact change without the govt or courts having to get involved.
FWIW I shop at Target. They never have an issue with me being armed. 😉
I would probably feel better in walmart being armed.
marin, have you ever thought about the fact that you are obsessed with being armed?
I think if women have been wronged they should sue. I wonder how many women is too many?
@Moon-howler
Those that carry habitually are not obsessed. Its that they are not dressed without it, like leaving the house without pants.
Besides, if you think that you are safer with it, why would someone NOT carry it? Since there are restrictions, one goes where they can carry. We have to completely alert to the places we carry as we can break laws if we don’t.
“I think if women have been wronged they should sue. I wonder how many women is too many?”
I think it’s less the number and more the commonality. If they argued all the women in 1 store or all the stores in a district or region I could see that being certified as a class. All of them past and present? Including female managers? What do the female managers have in common with the female retail workers? Just doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Obsession? No. I’m tame. I use guns as an example of a right. That it’s also a physical thing makes it a very handy example. A tool, if you will.
visual aid?
That makes sense. So it might also be too broad based to take up.
Many different layers here for sure. Its a very complex issue.