Wal-Mart wins US top court sex-bias case ruling

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court  ruled for Wal-Mart Stores Inc today in the largest  sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, saying class-action  status for female employees seeking billions of dollars had  been improperly granted.
The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that  more than a million female employees nationwide could join in  the lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving  them fewer promotions.
The Supreme Court agreed with Wal-Mart that the  class-action certification violated federal rules for such  lawsuits.
The high court accepted Wal-Mart’s main argument that the  female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores  nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in  common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.
The Supreme Court only decided whether the 10-year-old  lawsuit can proceed to trial as a group, not the merits of the  sex-discrimination allegations at the heart of the case.
Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and the largest  private U.S. employer, has denied the allegations and said it  has operated under a policy barring discrimination.
The ruling in the biggest business case of the high court’s  2010-11 term could affect other class-action lawsuits against  the tobacco industry and Costco Wholesale Corp. It also was the  court’s most important job-discrimination dispute in more than  a decade.
Justice Antonin Scalia concluded for the court majority  that the class was not properly certified.
He said there must be significant proof that Wal-Mart  operated under a general policy of discrimination. “That is  entirely absent here,” he said, noting that Wal-Mart’s official  corporate policies forbid sex discrimination.
Wal-Mart shares rose after news of the decision, rising 46  cents, almost 1 percent, to $53.28 in morning trading on the  New York Stock Exchange.
The court’s four other conservatives joined all of Scalia’s  ruling. The court’s four liberals joined part of it, but  dissented in part.

Around the Web

Comments