Supreme Court blocks massive sex-discrimination suit against Wal-Mart
By Robert
Barnes, June21, 2011 - Washington Post
The Supreme Court on Monday blocked the massive sex-discrimination case
female employees brought against Wal-Mart in a decision that might make it
harder to bring future discrimination lawsuits against large corporations.
The court agreed unanimously that the Wal-Mart suit could not go forward as a
class action that could affect as many as 1.5 million female workers, past and
present. The decision was a huge win for Wal-Mart, which could have faced
billions of dollars in damages and back pay.
The court split 5 to 4 on ideological lines, however, about whether the women
had shown enough to prove there were common practices at work that resulted in
discrimination at the worldfs largest private employer. That split could hold
great importance for future discrimination cases.
Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the
plaintiffsf central contention: While Wal-Mart has a corporate policy against
discrimination, it leaves hiring, pay and promotion decisions to local managers
who reflect a corporate culture of male-dominance.
gIn a company of Wal-Martfs size and geographical scope, it is quite
unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way
without some common direction,h Scalia wrote
for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
He said the women attempt gto make that showing by means of statistical and
anecdotal evidence, but their evidence falls well short.h
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the liberal members of the court agreed with
their colleagues on one aspect of the case: that the district court and U.S.
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in California should not have certified the
class-action suit under a part of the federal law that allows for monetary
awards, rather than simply forcing the company to change its allegedly
discriminatory practices.
But she said the women had presented ample evidence that there was a problem
at Wal-Mart, where women fill 70 percent of the hourly jobs but make up only 33
percent of management employees.
She found appealing the statistical regression analysis an expert had
presented to show the pay and promotions disparities at Wal-Mart gcan be
explained only by gender discrimination and not by ... neutral variables.h
Ginsburg added: gManagers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which
they are unaware. The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers
are pre-dominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that
perpetuates gender stereotypes.h
She was joined by the courtfs other female justices, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
The courtfs rejection of using statistical analysis to prove a common
practice of discrimination could be key to the viability of future class-action
discrimination suits against large employers.
Scalia pointed out that plaintiffs had filed 120 affidavits reporting
discrimination — gabout 1 for every 12,500 class membersh — and that some states
included in the study had no anecdotes of discrimination.
gEven if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not
demonstrate that the entire company operates under a general policy of
discrimination ... which is what respondents must show to certify a companywide
class,h he wrote.
Before the decision, those who support class-action suits said requiring more
than the Wal-Mart plaintiffs showed in order to move forward with their lawsuit
would free companies to discriminate. So long as the company had an official
corporate policy forbidding discrimination, they said, managers could do
whatever they wanted in practice.
gThis case is not over,h said Brad Seligman, one of the lawyers representing
the women. He said individual suits alleging discrimination may proceed, or
smaller class-action suits. He said 12,000 women had contacted his office over
the years.
gWal-Mart is not off the hook,h he said.
National Womenfs Law Center Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger called it a
gdevastating decision undoing the rights of millions of women across the country
to come together and hold their employers accountable for their discriminatory
practices.h
She added: gThe court has told employers that they can rest easy, knowing
that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their employees will
be able to join together to secure their rights.h
Wa-mart issued a statement saying the court made the right decision.
gWal-Mart has had strong policies against discrimination for many years. The
Court today unanimously rejected class certification and, as the majority made
clear, the plaintiffsf claims were worlds away from showing a companywide
discriminatory pay and promotion policy.h
The case was brought by several Wal-Mart workers, including Betty Dukes, a
Pittsburg, Calif., cashier who began work for the company in 1994 and continues
to work there today, as a greeter.
Dukes said that she was gof course disappointedh by the courtfs ruling, but
that suits against Wal-Mart will be filed nationwide.
gMy voice has been heard, but Ifm not the only Betty Dukes in this country,h
she said.
The case is Dukes v. Wal-Mart.
© The Washington Post Company