MOBILE
High court hands Wal-Mart victory in discrimination suit
A Wal-Mart worker pulls carts at a Wal-Mart store in Pittsburg, Calif., on Monday. A worker at this store was a plaintiff in a sex- discrimination class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart.
June 21, 2011
WASHINGTON – Women and minorities who think they are underpaid will find it nearly impossible to band together to sue employers for discrimination under a Supreme Court ruling against 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in the most important job-bias case in a decade.
Only if there is proof a company has a policy of paying less to women or minorities can the employees get together in a class-action suit, the court said in an opinion Monday by Justice Antonin Scalia. Statistics showing that a company’s female workers, in fact, earn far less and get fewer promotions than men will not suffice, the court said.
The decision is just the latest in a series of major rulings favoring business under the stewardship of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Columbia University law professor John Coffee said the Wal-Mart ruling all but sounds the death knell for class-action suits against employers that seek money. “This significantly changes the balance between employers and employees. And it largely eliminates the monetary threat facing big employers,” he said. Lawsuits are expensive to bring, “and if there is no money relief at the end of the road, there is no incentive to bring the suit,” he said.
The Wal-Mart case has been seen as a key test of whether civil rights lawyers, armed with computer-generated data on wages, could force the nation’s largest employer to stand trial and face billions of dollars in potential liability. Had they won against Wal-Mart, other similar suits against nationwide retailers were in the offing.
While the justices all agreed that the employees had no right to group damages under the court rule they cited in their suit, that unanimity masked a fundamental split largely along gender lines over the extent of discrimination at Wal-Mart and the amount of proof required to proceed with a class action.
Speaking for a 5-4 conservative majority in the central holding, Scalia said this class-action claim and others like it are doomed without “convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy.”
Pointing to a provision of the federal rules of civil procedure requiring a class action to have “questions of law or fact common to the class,” Scalia said this suit does not get to first base.
He said Wal-Mart has 3,400 stores spread across the United States and leaves it up to store managers to decide on pay levels and promotions.
“In a company of Wal-Mart’s size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction,” Scalia said. “Significant proof that Wal-Mart operates under a general policy of discrimination is entirely absent here,” he said.
Roberts and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. agreed with Scalia in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.
Scalia said this suit was flawed for another reason. A single class-action claim that supposedly speaks for a huge number of persons does not entitle all of them to “an individualized award of monetary damages.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer, agreed that Wal-Mart could not be forced to pay damages to all these women without individual hearings under one court rule, but argued forcibly that there was substantial evidence of discrimination and that the case should have been allowed to proceed.
Ginsburg, who specialized in cases involving gender discrimination before joining the court, pointed to data obtained from Wal-Mart that painted a portrait of a “company culture” that was biased against them. For example, while women hold about 70 percent of the hourly jobs, they make up only 33 percent of the management employees.
“The plaintiffs’ evidence, including class members’ tales of their own experiences, suggests that gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s company culture,” Ginsburg wrote. “Among illustrations, senior management often refer to female associates as ‘little Janie Qs,’ ” she said.
Giving male managers a free hand to make decisions on pay and promotions can, and apparently did, lead to discrimination, she said. “Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to the biases of which they are unaware,” she wrote.
The decision did not absolve Wal-Mart of the allegations that it had short-changed its female employees. Rather, the justices decided only that the suit did not fit within the rules for class-action claims. Individuals will still be free to file discrimination suits.
Boycott Wal-Mart
I just heard on the news that one of the reasons given for stopping this suit was that these women did not have enough in common to justify a class action. Let’s see, they are all women, paid less then men for the same jobs and all work for wal-mart. Gee, I thought these poeple on the SC were supposed to have some sort of intelligence. Guess not. Another victory for corporate america and another step closer to third world working conditions for the american people.
Good, good decision and law of the land. Walmart has NO policies promoting discrimination. And just because some think they are discriminated against don’t make it so..especially when relying on the concept of American culture (ergo employers) favoring white males as a basis for class action. Yes, it still does but not as it used to be (look at national politicians) Truth is that Walmart is more diverse than Congress and the Obama administration.
Why would anyone want to boycott Walmart? Make your best argument. I will be back later to blow holes in it.
Did any of you besides Ninch read this part
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer, agreed that Wal-Mart could not be forced to pay damages to all these women without individual hearings
That would make it a unamious vote by the judges.on that part. That does not happen very often.
Ladys procede with your individual suits if they are valid suits a lawyer will take the suit on a contingincy basis. If yiouy cant find a lawyer to take it then maybe you do not have a case.
Ninch, as I posted yesterday, there are several reasons why people should boycott Wal-Mart:
1. Although they employ a great deal of people, in most cases they pay their employees minimum wage or a little above.
2. Wal-Mart exploits cheap international labor. Workers in Bangladesh make as little as nine cents an hour producing goods for Wal-Mart.
3. Having interviewed for a job there once, several years ago, they actually sit you down in orientation and make you watch a video against organized labor.
4. They drive “Mom & Pop” businesses out of business by undercutting them.
Four reasons is enough to boycott, now, refute!
When liberals don’t get their way,,,, it’s “boycott,” and “riot” [Walmart, Corporations, Wisconsin Teachers Union and Greek Socialists]. Attempt to intimidate, bully and participate in various degrees of anarchy. World-wide, it’s all the same when liberals don’t get their way.
All the while, never stop the “character assassination,” “vicious name-calling” of your opponent, including but not limited to, “liars,” “racists,” “homophobes,” et al.
When liberals can’t address the facts, they resort to all of the above along with endless “Red Herrings” and mis-information.
Of course, all of the above is promoted by the mainstream, liberal leaning media.
Any quasi-student of American Liberalism knows all of the above to be true.
It doesn’t take a “rocket scientist” to figure this out. Casual observation will produce the same conclusion.
LOL not at all Hawken. There is no anger or outrage with a boycott, despite you wanting to think so. You simply don’t patronize their establishment, and that’s it.
detroitdude: Mom and pop stores have been going away since I was a kid in the fifties.
Cheap labor give me a break. Everyone that is reading this, is using something that was built by someone making less than a buck an hour. The food you eat was picked and processed by slave labor ( remember you can not own slave any more but you can rent them). Wall mart did not start the supply system of today, but they use it better than others.
As for unions they are not like they were when I was in one, now they are nothing but a big business run by people on the most part that never lifted a wrench or got their hands grease.
It always amazes me, and shouldn’t, how everything is either the liberals fault, the conservatives fault, the Democrats did it, the Republicans did it, etc. Every time you take this approach to resolving a situation or justifying your point all you are actually doing is showing that you are a bigoted, biased individual who buys into every stereotype. You probably are the same ones that believe all Indians are drunks, all Latino’s are illegal, and whatever political party you subscribe to is actually looking out directly for you. To those of you on both sides of the fence: find REAL facts to back up your opinion, because we all have a right to have one, and then run with it. At least you aren’t listening to some blowhard on the radio or television professing that they know everything, because they don’t. Their job is to incite irrational belief, opinion, and behavior, and they are millionaires because they do.
Most of you would consider me a “liberal” … so be it, tag me if you have to. However, I am so very tired of lawsuits, after lawsuits, after lawsuits from ignorant people thinking they can sue anyone with deep pockets because their coffee was too hot or they didn’t know what ‘cruise control’ meant. Ridiculous. In this case, if Wal-Mart does or did something wrong, then yes, punish them and take care of business. But the facts, at least in this situation, dictate otherwise. And boycott? Go ahead, I’m sure they’ll just be knocking down your door for your business.
One last thing, the four (4) points above:
1. Most retailers pay their employees minimum wage or slightly above, that is the only way to stay in business in this day and age. Don’t like it? Learn a special skill or trade, expand your education, etc. and make yourself more marketable.
2. Your facts are off, but the idea is correct. Bangladesh, and similar areas have laborers who work for cents, many of those children. I personally don’t like it. But I live here, not there. Have you ever been to South East Asia? I have. These “cents” are what keep most of their families alive. Like it or not, that is their daily life and they play the game of survival every day. Banning Wal Mart isn’t going to change anything, because there are a milliion other companies doing the same thing. The change must happen their … and I believe in time it will.
3. You interviewed for a job there several years ago. That statement insinuates that you didn’t get the job. At Wal Mart. Enough said.
4. I’m all for local and small business, and I want them to succeed. Wal Mart serves a purpose. Small business CAN succeed. Be smart, be proactive, and you will. Too many small business owners have been doing the same thing in the same place and feel they are “entitled”. They are not. They must change and adapt to stay in business just like everyone else.
One last note: take all of the oil companies profit and evenly distribute it amongst our population and we wouldn’t even have to worry about things like this. Just saying.
Yep,,,, voice_of_reason,,, you re indeed a liberal. A Socialist Liberal, which is antithetical to American Capitalism, when you say:
American Capitalism is the reason people are not living in mud huts, barefoot, without their iphone5 and using candles to light the night.
“A rising tide lifts all ships.”
@ Voice_of_reason:
1. I have been to college and have two degrees, and I agree, anyone who wants to earn above the poverty line has the option to get further training or schooling to qualify them for higher paying positions. That still doesn’t mean everyone should be happy with the status quo.
2. Even if it’s not 9 cents or if it is closer to 50 cents, you can choose to consciously NOT contribute to that type of thing. And yes, everybody has something that was produced by cheap/slave/child labor I’m sure. I wasn’t saying Wal-Mart is the ONLY guilty party when it comes to this. We are a nation of importers, pretty much everything we buy comes from somewhere out of this country, especially when shopping in stores like Wal-Mart.
3. You assume too much. I did get the job and was sitting in the new employee orientation, until I got a phone call that I was accepted for a better position I had applied for with a different company, so I left without working a day there.
4. I will agree that some business’ have floundered, or failed to change with the times. Still, it is very difficult to be competitive and sell your product when you have to charge more for the same item someone could purchase for less at a place like Wal-Mart, and then, because of convenience, that person could also do all the other shopping they needed to in one big store.
I personally don’t shop at Wal-Mart, I don’t go out there with a sign saying they are evil and encourage others not to shop there. Boycotting something is a personal choice people can make. But the reasons I listed, that is enough for me to find alternatives to feeding the Wal-Mart machine.
Hawken, seriously, STOP WITH THE MAINSTREAM LIBERAL MEDIA COMMENTS!!!!! Take 10 minutes to look up who owns most of the media giants in this country and see where their political contributions usually go to.
We have of course News Corp, which is Fox News, and well I don’t even know to explain how right wing they are.
CBS’s parent company is Viacom and CBS is run by the CBS Corporation. Take a minute to go see who they donate to politically.
ABC is owned by Walt Disney, again, please take a look at how they contribute to politically.
Finally NBC is now owned by Comcast, which is known among the highest republican campaign contributors around. In fact when they bought NBC many thought they might do away with MSNBC left leaning hosts because they do not fit with Comcasts own political views.
Most newspapers are now also owned by mostly right leaning giant corporations that donate a majority to republicans.
Talk radio is DOMINATED by right wing talk hosts and companies that refuse to put liberal talkers on in even the biggest markets in the country (like Washington DC for one)
This whole bogus thing of liberal media bias was put on steroids by Sarah Palin because she was to stupid to answer the question of what Magazines she reads. Take the time to find out the facts before spouting the stupid talking points of Sarah Palin, who is so damn dumb she doesn’t even know about Paul Revere.
Hawken, wal-mart pays its people just enough so they can be insured by the state for health care. So it’s allright for a corporations to practice socialism? Get a grip on reality, we are not that dfferent then china and soon our pay will be about the same.
So, just because WallyWorld doesn’t have a written policy of discriminating against women, it’s off the hook even if de facto, there is a gigantic discrepancy between what women make there, and how many women managers there are compared to males?
Like we think this giant corporation would be stupid enough to put such a policy in WRITING?
The results speak for themselves. Wallyworld got off on a legal technicality. SSDD.
BTW, I don’t shop there because in my shopping experiences there, it was mostly unpleasant. I buy almost everything on sale which typically meets or beats WalMart’s pricing and with better convenience for me.
I also applaud them for their environmental policies, at least in their US operations, can’t speak to it regarding their suppliers in developing countries.
mikeln wrote,
“Let’s see, they are all women, paid less then men for the same jobs and all work for wal-mart.”
Yup. None of which facts constitute a violation of civil rights laws, which require an intent on the part of the defendant to discriminate.
I hope you’re never called for jury duty. You’d be drawing all kinds of irrational conclusions from non-existent evidence.
detroitdude wrote,
“Four reasons is enough to boycott, now, refute!”
Those are all very good reasons, if you are a a collectivist, or a Statist, or just a busybody who believes what Walmart pays its employees is any business of yours.
On the other hand, if you assume Walmart’s employees themselves are better qualified to decide whether or not working there is to their advantage, and you also wish to save money, then you’ll probably not be interested in a boycott.
So feel free to boycott. That will only mean a better selection for me when I shop there.
Regarding Walmart policies… they use veteran’s preference for new hires and promotions (just like our federal, state, and local governments), which in turn leads to more males than females because more males than females were in military service. Any problem with that policy?
(BTW: Quit using falsehoods. Walmart does pay women the same as men for the SAME job. Equal pay law has been in place for decades.)
Correct that Walmart is not off the hook regarding individuals who can still sue, but that is federal law applicable to all employers/employees. But this class action suit would have been a special circumstance that had no basis in fact.
Paying persons minimum wage is not a crime, and as another poster above pointed out, is common in retail employment.
Try and find any retailer that does not import/sell foreign products because those goods are cheaper.
Notably, most do not know that Walmart also has a local product buying program rather it be food or nonfood goods. Ergo local small businesses benefit directly.
Indirect benefits include Walmart as the anchor store which draws people to the community who then also shop at other retail/service businesses. For example, I know Canadians who make weekly trips to Colville Walmart and also shop/eat downtown.
gmorton said: “Those are all very good reasons, if you are a a collectivist, or a Statist, or just a busybody who believes what Walmart pays its employees is any business of yours.”
True, maybe the real reason I boycott it is because Susan Chambers is the anti-Christ. What difference does it make WHY someone decides not to shop at a certain place? You would not consistently patronize a restaurant that continually serves you awful food, so what is the big difference in this case? You bet it bothers me when a monolithic corporation earns billions and keeps the majority of their workforce at $10 an hour, and that is being GENEROUS since we live in WA. They can keep our people working for less, while paying tiny costs to have their products produced offshore.
And you know, I guess that just sits fine with you, more power to you. Shaving that extra dollar off for a years supply of dill pickles must really be worth it.
detroitdude wrote,
“You would not consistently patronize a restaurant that continually serves you awful food . . .”
Correct. I would not shop at Walmart if it continually sold inferior merchandise, either.
“They can keep our people working for less, while paying tiny costs to have their products produced offshore.”
“Our people”?
Sorry, detroit, but the people who work at Walmart are not “our people.” They are not your people or my people. They are their own people, and have freely chosen to work there. The terms of their employment are none of my business – or yours.
You need to switch off that collectivist loop in your neural circuits.
Agree to disagree Gmorton, as per usual. “Our people” refers to the American worker and his immediate interests. And since that worker outnumbers a corporation and is actually alive, I place priority on the person and not the entity.
“You need to switch off that collectivist loop in your neural circuits.”
Why? Why does embracing ideals that benefit us on the whole as HUMANS, not as just Americans detract from a better standard of life for all? I know, you hate this “free lunch” idea, but seriously, that is economics 101 and is very elementary, don’t you have any real, critical, intellectual thoughts on any subject besides what was put pen to paper in our Constitution? I’d was designed to be a flexible document, not something that is viewed by the same standards as those in 1789.
should read: “It was designed to be a flexible document, not something that is viewed by the same standards as those in 1789.”
Detroit—I own shares of Wal-Mart (through mutual funds) and if they paid unskilled, uneducated (beyond HS), entry-level workers more than $10 an hour, I would have to re-evaluate my investment(s).
Which positions at Wal-Mart outside of mgt positions and specialty positions (pharmacy, etc) demand higher than $10 per hour? Wal-Mart isn’t really any different than other box store retailers.
@jddavis: You’re correct in the sense that most large retailers have made these types of business arrangements. As I said, I don’t sit around advocating people not go there, I just don’t go there myself.
I am not expecting all retail and service level jobs to earn $20 an hour, or that they make a law saying it is so. All I am saying in general is something needs to be done about economic disparity. You put in one hour at Wal=Mart, in most of the country, and you don’t earn enough to put even 2 gallons of gasoline in your car…that’s messed up to me.
detroitdude wrote,
“Why does embracing ideals that benefit us on the whole as HUMANS, not as just Americans detract from a better standard of life for all?”
Well, it wouldn’t, detroit. Unfortunately, however, “ideals” claimed to benefit us “on the whole as humans” virtually never do. They invariably benefit some interest group at the expense of another, and the group who benefits is usually not the one you intended to benefit.
For example, your complaint about the wages Walmart pays, if acted upon, would benefit their workers – for a while. But if the company began paying substantially higher wages, then it could no longer sell its products at their current low prices. That means that Walmart’s customers, many of whom have even lower incomes than the workers, will be forced to pay more for the things they buy there. So the customers are made worse off so that the workers can be better off.
In the case of the workers in the 3rd world who make many of the goods Walmart sells, if Walmart were to raise its prices because it is forced to pay higher wages to its American workers, then demand for those goods will fall, and many of the 3rd world workers will be out of work – they will be once again wading rice paddies or begging on the streets of Calcutta. For most of them, their jobs at the shoe factory or chinaware factory are the best jobs they ever had in their lives – better than any job their parents ever had.
And of course, since Walmart would no longer enjoy the competitive edge it now enjoys, many of its stores would close. Then those workers who benefited from the higher wage would be out of work, and have no wage at all.
Always be wary of claims that such-and-such is “to the benefit of everyone,” or “in the public interest.”
*It (almost) never is*.