Court: Wal-Mart Must Face Bias Suit

Retail Giant To Appeal Ruling That OKs Class-Action Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

(AP)  A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest private employer, must face a class-action lawsuit alleging as many as 1.5 million female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2004 federal judge's decision to let the nation's largest class-action employment discrimination lawsuit go to trial, possibly exposing the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse to billions of dollars in damages.

"Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination," the court wrote in a 2-1 decision.

According to Lowell Peterson, a labor and bankruptcy partner in New York, "If the gender discrimination is proven, you're talking about a plaintiff class of 1.5 million people. You've got to figure that these damages are going to be accrued over a number of years."

Wal-Mart said it would ask the court to rehear the case with the same three-judge panel or with 15 judges, a move likely to idle the case for months. Tuesday's ruling came 18 months after the case was argued.

"This is one step of what is going to be a long process," Wal-Mart attorney Theodore Boutrous Jr. said. "We are very optimistic of obtaining relief from this ruling."

He said Wal-Mart's own review found no significant disparity in pay between men and women at 90 percent of its stores.

Wal-Mart, which currently employs 1.3 million workers, claimed that the conventional rules of class action suits should not apply in the case because its 3,400 stores, including Sam's Club warehouse outlets, operate like independent businesses, and that the company did not have a policy of discriminating against women.

U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, the San Francisco trial court judge who said the case could proceed, had ruled that anecdotal evidence warranted a class-action trial. Wal-Mart took the case to the San Francisco-based appeals court.

Jenkins said if companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial, Wal-Mart could be forced to pay billions of dollars to women who earned less than their male counterparts. Jenkins rejected as "impractical" Wal-Mart's suggestion of having individual hearings for each plaintiff and he planned to use a statistical formula to compensate the women if they won.

Wal-Mart said the judge's scenario was an unprecedented denial of its rights and sought to dismiss the case. The company said women who allege discrimination could file lawsuits against individual stores.

The women's lawyers said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.

"Although size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority, which upheld Jenkins' decision in its entirety.

But Judge Andrew Kleinfeld wrote in a dissent that women should perhaps file individual lawsuits to safeguard Wal-Mart from paying those who don't deserve money, and would also ensure women get the compensation they deserve.

The appellate court's decision, he wrote, "threatens the rights of women injured by sex discrimination. And it threatens Wal-Mart's rights."

Brad Seligman, one of the attorneys who represented the women suing Wal-Mart, said the decision would hurt the company's reputation.

"No amount of PR by Wal-Mart is going to allow it to deal with its legacy of discrimination," Seligman said.

David Nassar, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, a group critical of Wal-Mart policies, said the decision vindicates "victims of the company's illegal and immoral gender discrimination."

David Nassar, executive director of Wal-Mart Watch, a group critical of Wal-Mart policies, said the decision vindicates the "victims of the company's illegal and immoral gender discrimination."

Wal-Mart shares rose 6 cents to close at $48.58 on the New York Stock Exchange.

[amberleeheat]

my husband works for Wal-Mart and he is the one being looked over for prometion not all the femails but the mails maby the women should get off there high horses and let others get permoted

[james.grimes]

When you get a job, the government doesn't hand it to you, you go out and get it. Wal-Mart didn't go to these people asking if they want to work for it, they went to Wal-Mart looking for a job. After the initial Q & A session, and a drug test, you are hired, you sign on the dotted line concerning your start pay, your job, and any special requirements you may have. Ladies, remember this, you went to Wal-Mart, not the other way around.

[suiteo1]

To sagitbadger:

I for one, am GLAD if that's all you can say!

[rray52]

Things to think about and research.

This is a class action.
Filed in San Francisco, appealed in the Ninth Circuit.

Class actions normally result in a large payout for the lawyers and a small settlement for the members of the class. Example: Court awards a one billion dollars, lawyers receive 400 million, the remaing 600 million is divided between the 1.5 million members of the class. Each member receives $400

As a female employ of Wal-Mart you are automatically included in the class unless you opt out in writing.
As member of the class action you lose the right to file a individual lawsuit to address *** discrimination.

I think the lawyers filed in San Francisco/Ninth Circuit because they think it is a friendly court. They trend to large awards and are less then friendly to non-union companies.

I%u2019m not a friend of Wal-Mart but I%u2019m not a friend of lawyers either.

[gmond]

Uh, this just in, hazelknows nothing.

She states that the taxpayers foot the bill for low-income worker's health insurance?? In what country? Not in America. In America, you have to be on welfare or disabled to get Medicaid.

It has been a long time since the government rewarded those who would go out and get any crappy job any kind of help in the form of any kind of government benefits.

[gmond]

The entire retail industry, and that includes fast food franchises, has been guilty of the same practices for decades. Walmart is constantly singled out simply because it is so ubiquitous and therefore an easy target. Retail will always be low pay, long hours and hard work no matter what gender holds the keys to the front door.

[fascistusa]

Yes 'm Masser Wal-Mart. Weze work real hard for you. Maybe ize go work K-Mart and getz the same slavery.

Who owns deez businesses anywaz?

The Corporate Elite.

WE ARE ALL SLAVES.

[sagitbadger]

All I can say is if you don't like working at Wal-Mart and the way they treat you, go work at K-Mart. Grow up!

[hazelknows]

I couldn't agree more with the terrible way they under pay employees and offer very little or no benefits, one of the riches companies and the tax payers are footing the bill for workers health insurance. And we'll get to listen to Wal-mart laywers squeal in court how unfair they are being treated........

[james.grimes]

This lawsuit is ridiculous. As a Wal-Mart associate, I can tell you Wal-Mart not only doesn't discriminate, it audits its records to catch any discrimination by its managers, whether they be facility, co, assistant, or department managers. Wal-Mart does not tolerate discrimination and it will terminate those within the company that do.

[james.grimes]

This lawsuit is ridiculous. As a Wal-Mart associate, I can tell you Wal-Mart not only doesn't discriminate, it audits its records to see to catch any discrimination by its managers, whether they be facility, co, assistant, or department managers. Wal-Mart does not tolerate discrimination and it will terminate those within the company that do.

[tuckerndfw]

Must suck to be stuck at the $7 an hour, part time position level when you could be making $7.50 an hour and getting paid for forty hours while working eighty hours a week as a full time store manager.

[hissteps4u]

It is about time they were held accountable for their actions.

They have destroyed the very Fabric of Small town America and now they face the judgement of their ruthless growth and rapid advance upon the american Fabric of Life.

Sam would turn in his Grave and never have allowed this to have become what it is today!

Shame on Wal-Mart and may they get what they deserve......

[edjohn66]

Get 'em!

Wal-Mart treats its workers like ***; its about time they are held accountable for at least ONE of their horrible labor practices. And we are supposed to believe that it isn't a company-wide problem? Please.....

Nail the jerks to the wall!!!! Boycott Wal-Mart!!!!!