March 26, 2011 | Log In | Sign Up

Walmart Will Urge Supreme Court To Reject Record Sex-Discrimination Lawsuit


First Posted: 03/22/11 03:20 PM Updated: 03/22/11 03:20 PM

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female employees who seek billion of dollars.

The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against the world's largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998.

Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of current and former employees that could total millions of women.

The case has pitted women's and employees' rights against business interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling it "the most important class-action case facing the court in over a decade."

The case will have far-reaching implications for working women who challenge discrimination, women's rights advocate Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center said.

"The ability of women to be treated fairly in the workplace hangs in the balance," Greenberger said.

Story continues below
Advertisement

The ruling, expected by late June, could change the legal landscape for workplace class-action lawsuits and affect many cases, including a similar one against Costco Wholesale Corp.

Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have yielded huge payouts by tobacco, oil and food companies.

Companies have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small groups of plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that has often ruled for businesses, has already limited large class-action securities fraud lawsuits and asbestos cases.

If Wal-Mart wins, the huge class would be undone, though the company still could face individual discrimination lawsuits. If the workers win, they would be able to pursue their lawsuit as a collective group at trial.

Legal experts and financial analysts said Wal-Mart, with more than $400 billion in sales and $16 billion in net income last year, has enough cash to make even a big payout if it loses at trial.

"It would take a seismic ruling against the company to have an impact on the valuation," said R.J. Hottovy, equity analyst at the Chicago-based Morningstar Inc investment research firm.

MANAGERS ACCUSED OF GOING STRIP CLUBS

The Wal-Mart lawsuit has produced testimony that managers held business meetings at Hooters restaurants, attended strip clubs and referred to female employees as "girls," in what plaintiffs lawyers said was a corporate culture rife with stereotypes demeaning to women.

Wal-Mart, founded in 1962 and based in Bentonville, Arkansas, has denied the allegations and said it has operated under a policy barring discrimination.

The discount retailer said the claims involving current and former female workers, hourly employees and salaried managers, and stores across the country are too different to proceed as a single class-action lawsuit.

Lawyer Theodore Boutrous, who will argue for Wal-Mart, said bundling together all the diverse claims is unfair, making it impossible for the company to defend itself.

"Class actions can be helpful for efficiency, and there's an attraction to that. But at some point, they can start chopping away rights. I think that's what happened here," Boutrous told reporters.

Jocelyn Larkin and other lawyers for the employees disagreed. They said overwhelming evidence supported the judge's decision, upheld by a U.S. appeals court, to certify the nationwide class for trial.

"Wal-Mart is attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court's employment discrimination class-action jurisprudence," Larkin said.

"Such far-reaching changes to the law would require the court to overrule 45 years of civil rights and class-action precedent. This would rule out certification of all but the smallest employment discrimination cases," Larkin said.

The Obama administration did not take a position in the dispute, even though the federal government's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission previously supported the workers.

Legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court split largely along predictable lines, with Wal-Mart supported by business groups and big corporations, including retailer Costco, tobacco company Altria Group Inc and software giant Microsoft Corp. Women's rights groups backed the employees.

The Supreme Court case is Wal-Mart Stores Inc v. Betty Dukes, No. 10-277.
(Additional reporting by Jessica Wohl in Chicago; Editing by Will Dunham)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female employees who seek bill...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female employees who seek bill...
Filed by Maxwell Strachan  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
103
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Login or connect with: 
More Login Options
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »   (4 total)
jaredbrain   3 minutes ago (11:44 AM)
Gee, I wonder which way this supreme court will side...
photo
Imzadi   4 hours ago (7:51 AM)
Of course they don't want it to get to the Supreme Court. And that is precisely why it needs to be heard. The abuses to their workers need to be exposed and penalized.
Arts4u   10 hours ago (1:55 AM)
Walmart family members collective­ly worth $63 billion...­.. billion dollars.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nicole Dixson   14 hours ago (10:14 PM)
WalMart-Lo­w prices but at what cost? Go, Ladies!!!!
robert horwitz   19 hours ago (4:53 PM)
I am not a Walmart basher but how companies Walmart included get themselves into these fixes is just based on foolish thinking. Woman are just a capable as men. I have had bosses of both sexes good and bad. What's with the discrimina­tion? Just treat all your employees with respect and considerat­ion which is the way it should be and your company won't wind up in front of the Supreme Court.
photo
Mister Grumpy   20 hours ago (3:49 PM)
Keep shopping at Walmart buying that chinese made junk......­..... and while you're there ask an employee (if you can find one that speaks english) how well their being treated...­...... okay?.....­.....
TheNitewatch   11:44 AM on 3/23/2011
Poor Chinamart.
SYR   11:39 AM on 3/23/2011
I fear that the Supremes will side with Wally World given their current conservati­ve, pro-corpor­ation leaning. I seriously doubt the facts of the case will matter much. Our court has too many politician­s and too few jurists.
zooperman   10:25 AM on 3/23/2011
Large class action suits are the only way someone can sue huge corporatio­ns for their egregious conduct. Individual­s simply will not have the resources to entice a decent legal team to take on the giants and their legal manipulati­ons. Unfortunat­ely, the individual­s in successful class action suits often get a mere pittance as their share of the claim, and the lawyers become instant millionair­es.
photo
moutonnoir   18 hours ago (5:57 PM)
the natural order of 'merika'
firstep   09:37 AM on 3/23/2011
Imagine a world with out Wal Mart. Think of the tens of thousands of small businesses popping up and real competitio­n in pricing. Think of all the better jobs and new life back in towns.
Lets all hope the court decides the right way.
photo
Mister Grumpy   20 hours ago (3:51 PM)
I know of numerous small towns whose city business centers wouldn't look like ghost towns if Walmart didn't exist.....­......
Arts4u   10 hours ago (1:46 AM)
What happened with this is that those who shop there didn't realize that small business overall employs more people than large, 60% to be exact. If we allow small business to further disappear, there will be yet even fewer jobs.

No one who shops at Walmart or Target or any of the other massive big box stores thinks long term about their buying decisions.
AZreb   50 minutes ago (10:57 AM)
You also have to check labels when you shop. Or ask specifical­ly, as I did, for a TV "made in the USA" or whatever other large purchase you make.

Yes - it takes more time and a solution would be for stores to have a special section in each aisle that features "made in USA" items. I never shop at WalMart and don't miss it at all.
squat6971   09:31 AM on 3/23/2011
I've got $5 says Walmart loses. Any takers?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sueinmn   08:42 AM on 3/23/2011
Does everyone know who stood for Walmart employees to bring these cases to light? Certainly wasnt the Walmart workers! The many union haters out there, thank the unions for attempting to bring fair play to Walmarts! As unions are disbanned, we will see many more walmarts and the illegal practices they bring forward!
photo
clearthinker2008   09:49 AM on 3/23/2011
I agree with you about unions, but you also have to remember that UNIONS ARE WORKERS UNITED FOR RIGHTS. So I just wanted to point that out. Don't make it sound like unions are just big corp folks.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
ianmcc   10:18 AM on 3/23/2011
There is such irony in the fact that in communist China Walmart has unions for it's employees, yet here in supposedly democratic America Walmart union busts as much as they can to deny American workers this priviledge and right.
photo
moutonnoir   18 hours ago (5:58 PM)
chinese unions have baby teeth.. if that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mburgh   08:40 AM on 3/23/2011
If the SCOTUS rules for Wal-Mart, we should consider court-pack­ing like FDR did to rid the anti-citiz­en bias of conservati­ve justices who resist offending their corporate masters.
photo
Aldyth   09:45 AM on 3/23/2011
We should do that anyway. It would be the finest legacy Obama could have.
photo
indjoe   07:03 AM on 3/23/2011
Is Walmart going too take Thomas too Hooters .
photo
dwhuston   22 hours ago (1:35 PM)
Probably if Thomas does not take them.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pjwrites   05:56 AM on 3/23/2011
There isn't a doubt in my mind that these women probably have a case, as this is pretty common in any business, but if I know our courts, they will rule with the money player, of course. Wal-Mart will win.
dennis1943   09:34 AM on 3/23/2011
Possibly,b­ut the dissenting opinion should prove interestin­g.........­.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Social Construct   09:47 AM on 3/23/2011
precisely! And, if a more citizen-fr­iendly court ever takes shape in the future, that opinion will certainly be a good base for reversing any pro-discri­mination, pro-corpor­ate decision.

Twitter Edition