The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument today on whether a class action lawsuit is the way to litigate the claims of more than 1 million women claiming employment discrimination by Wal-Mart. The crux of the case is whether there are too many women with claims too diverse to be effectively combined into one lawsuit.
The women's lawyer, Joseph Sellers, told CNN a class action is the right approach because Wal-Mart's employment decisions are centralized, with individual stores complying with directives from above. But Theodore Boutrous, Wal-Mart's counsel, said a class action of this magnitude would be unmanageable and allowing it to go forward would set a dangerous precedent that could ensnare any large company.
The 9th Circuit ruled in favor of the plaintiffs petition to certify the class. The U.S. Supreme court is expected to make its determination on the appeal of the 9th Circuit ruling in June.
According to CNN, the conservative justices on the Court appeared skeptical of the appropriateness of grouping the Wal-Mart women's discrimination claims. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed warm to the idea, having worked in the field of employment discrimination before becoming a Justice.
However the Justices rule, Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will exert defining influence in the employment discrimination field. It will join other landmark Supreme Court precedents on sex discrimination in the workplace including these cases:
Cleveland Board of Ed. v. LaFleur
In this 1974 case, the high court held that mandatory maternity leave for pregnant teachers violated the teachers' due process rights. The Cleveland Board had required all pregnant women to take leave from five months of pregnancy through the term after the baby reached three months of age. Such paternalistic rules were once common but were extinguished by this important ruling.
Meritor Savings Bank v. VinsonThis 1986 case established that a plaintiff alleging a gender-based hostile working environment need not demonstrate economic harm in order to prevail. This ruling was essential to eliminating discrimination in the workplace that did not directly result in a loss of pay or promotion opportunity.
Johnson v. Transportation Agency
In 1987, the Supreme Court upheld the consideration of an applicant's sex in making a hiring decision as part of an Affirmative Action plan. The essence of this decision is that sex-based job consideration when intended to remedy rather than perpetuate employment discrimination may be appropriate.
This case interpreted the definition of sexual harassment to include actions by members of the plaintiff's own sex. The case involved male coworkers sexually harassing a male employee, and the court found that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act banned all discrimination "because of" sex, regardless of whether the parties involved were of the same or different sexes.
In appropriate circumstances, an employer may be vicariously liable for a supervisor's discriminatory conduct, according to this 1998 United States Supreme Court case. Employers are able to offer reasonableness of their conduct and lack of reasonableness on the part of the plaintiff as affirmative defenses to such liability.
There are no comments yet