Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has appealed a 6-5 lower court decision allowing women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 2001 to be part of a single class-action lawsuit. Photographer: Davis Turner/Bloomberg
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to block female employees from suing on behalf of
as many as 1.5 million women in what would be the largest
gender-bias suit against a private employer in U.S. history.
The world’s largest retailer today appealed a 6-5 lower
court decision allowing women who have worked at Wal-Mart since
2001 to be part of a single class-action lawsuit. The justices
likely will say later this year whether they will hear the case.
Saying the workers are seeking billions of dollars in back
pay, Wal-Mart told the justices that the claims of workers
around the country were too diverse to proceed as a single case
under the rules that govern federal lawsuits.
“The class is larger than the active-duty personnel in the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard combined --making
it the largest employment class action in history by several
orders of magnitude,” argued the Bentonville, Arkansas-based
company, the largest U.S. private employer.
Wal-Mart is accused of paying women less than men for the
same jobs and giving female workers fewer promotions. The
lawsuit was filed in 2001 by six women, including Betty Dukes, a
Wal-Mart greeter in Pittsburg, California.
“The ruling upholding the class in this case is well
within the mainstream that courts at all levels have recognized
for decades,” said Brad Seligman, an attorney for the workers,
in an e-mailed statement. “Only the size of the case is
unusual, and that is a product of Wal-Mart’s size and the
breadth of the discrimination we documented.”
Pay Disparity
The company says that no pay disparity exists between men
and women at most of its stores and that managers make
subjective salary and promotion decisions at the store level.
“Wal-Mart is an excellent place for women to work and has
been recognized as a leader in fostering the advancement and
success of women in the workplace,” the company said in a
statement.
The company agreed in 2008 to pay as much as $640 million
to settle 63 federal and state class actions claiming the
company cheated hourly workers and forced them to work through
breaks.
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
said proceeding as a class action was better than “clogging the
federal courts” with individual suits. “Mere size does not
render a case unmanageable,” Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote
for the majority.
In dissent, Judge Sandra Ikuta said, “Never before has
such a low bar been set for certifying such a gargantuan
class.”
A federal trial judge certified a class of as many as 1.5
million past and current employees. The 9th Circuit upheld that
ruling as to women who were working when the lawsuit was filed,
while saying the judge might be able to create an additional
class for former employees.
The case is Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes.
To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at
gstohr@bloomberg.net.