Wal-Mart to Face Massive Gender Bias Suit
A sharply divided federal appeals court on Monday exposed Wal-Mart Stores Inc. to billions of dollars in legal damages when it ruled a massive class action lawsuit alleging gender discrimination over pay for female workers can go to trial.
In its 6-5 ruling, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the world's largest private employer will have to face charges that it pays women less than men for the same jobs and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have to wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts.
The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., has fiercely fought the lawsuit since it was first filed by six women in federal court in San Francisco in 2001, losing two previous rulings in the trial court and again in the appeals court in 2007.
Wal-Mart successfully convinced the appeals court to revisit its 2007 ruling made by a three-judge panel with a larger 11-judge panel, arguing that women who allege discrimination should file individual lawsuits.
Wal-Mart employs 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide and argued that the conventional rules of class action suits should not apply because each outlet operates as an independent business. Since it doesn't have a companywide policy of discrimination, Wal-Mart argued that women alleging gender bias should file individual lawsuits against individual stores.
Finally, the retailer argued that the lawsuits is simply too big to defend.
"Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the majority court, which didn't address the merits of the lawsuit, leaving that for the trial court.
Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote a blistering dissent, joined by four of her colleagues.
"No court has ever certified a class like this one, until now. And with good reason," Ikuta wrote. "In this case, six women who have worked in thirteen of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores seek to represent every woman who has worked in those stores over the course of the last decade — a class estimated in 2001 to include more than 1.5 million women."
The ruling Monday may have trimmed the number of women who stand to collect damages if Wal-Mart is found liable. The appeals court ordered the trial judge to determine whether the lawsuit should date to 1998, as alleged in the complaint, or to 2001 when it was filed.
The appeals court also told the trial judge to reconsider the appropriateness of awarding punitive damages, which are awarded above actual damages to punish the accused for bad behavior.
Nevertheless, the attorneys suing Wal-Mart enjoyed a near-complete legal victory Monday.
"It upheld the heart of the case," said Brad Seligman, the lead lawyer suing Wal-Mart. Seligman said the lawsuit includes newly hired employees and accused Wal-Mart of continuing discriminatory practices.
A Wal-Mart representative said the retailer was preparing a statement.
Unions and other critics have long complained that Wal-Mart's workplace practices needed improvement, especially in the areas of diversity and career advancement.
The discounter responded to the pressure last year at its annual shareholders' meeting by announcing a plan to address the issue of promoting women, creating a "global council" comprised of 14 Wal-Mart female executives.
Wal-Mart shares fell 27 cents to $54.26 in afternoon trading.
© 2010 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. In its 6-5 ruling, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said the world's largest private employer will have to face charges that it pays women less than men for the same jobs and that female employees receive fewer promotions and have to wait longer for those promotions than male counterparts.
The retailer, based in Bentonville, Ark., has fiercely fought the lawsuit since it was first filed by six women in federal court in San Francisco in 2001, losing two previous rulings in the trial court and again in the appeals court in 2007.
Wal-Mart successfully convinced the appeals court to revisit its 2007 ruling made by a three-judge panel with a larger 11-judge panel, arguing that women who allege discrimination should file individual lawsuits.
Wal-Mart employs 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide and argued that the conventional rules of class action suits should not apply because each outlet operates as an independent business. Since it doesn't have a companywide policy of discrimination, Wal-Mart argued that women alleging gender bias should file individual lawsuits against individual stores.
Finally, the retailer argued that the lawsuits is simply too big to defend.
"Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable," Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote for the majority court, which didn't address the merits of the lawsuit, leaving that for the trial court.
Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote a blistering dissent, joined by four of her colleagues.
"No court has ever certified a class like this one, until now. And with good reason," Ikuta wrote. "In this case, six women who have worked in thirteen of Wal-Mart's 3,400 stores seek to represent every woman who has worked in those stores over the course of the last decade — a class estimated in 2001 to include more than 1.5 million women."
The ruling Monday may have trimmed the number of women who stand to collect damages if Wal-Mart is found liable. The appeals court ordered the trial judge to determine whether the lawsuit should date to 1998, as alleged in the complaint, or to 2001 when it was filed.
The appeals court also told the trial judge to reconsider the appropriateness of awarding punitive damages, which are awarded above actual damages to punish the accused for bad behavior.
Nevertheless, the attorneys suing Wal-Mart enjoyed a near-complete legal victory Monday.
"It upheld the heart of the case," said Brad Seligman, the lead lawyer suing Wal-Mart. Seligman said the lawsuit includes newly hired employees and accused Wal-Mart of continuing discriminatory practices.
A Wal-Mart representative said the retailer was preparing a statement.
Unions and other critics have long complained that Wal-Mart's workplace practices needed improvement, especially in the areas of diversity and career advancement.
The discounter responded to the pressure last year at its annual shareholders' meeting by announcing a plan to address the issue of promoting women, creating a "global council" comprised of 14 Wal-Mart female executives.
Wal-Mart shares fell 27 cents to $54.26 in afternoon trading.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- O.J. Simpson's ex-lawyer contradicts his testimony on guns
- Dozens injured as commuter trains collide in Conn.
- Seven-time lottery winner shares secret to winning Powerball
- Navy pilot earns degree in combat zone
- Tornadoes rip through northern Texas 17 Photos
- Why marry? Three generations tell their wedding stories
- Jail logs: Cleveland suspect Ariel Castro polite to guard
- Powerball jackpot at $600 million -- and climbing
Class action lawsuits are a scam. They usually are a vehicle for lawyers to spend years (guaranteed income) making hundreds of millions of dollars while the principles get relatively a fraction of the settlement or judgment and all those people in the class action get very little.
for instance, I have been added to at least 10 class action lawsuits in my lifetime--usually to do with mortgage companies, credit card companies and utility companies--oh yeah and car companies.
In case of all but the cars, the settlement can be around 400 million dollars or more.
The lawyers get 30-35% of that or about 125 million to split amongst themselves. So if the plaintiffs win, a team of 6 lawyers make about 20 million dollars EACH.
The principles or individual women in the lawsuit probably make about 3 to 5 million each and the rest is put in a kitty to pay out to all the hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands who make up the lawsuit.
The take of the average person who was not a principle plaintiff? Usually LESS THAN 100.00 EACH.
It all depends on how many are claimed to be effected.
Class action lawsuits are money making vehicles for lawyers--that is about all and they should be outlawed. Even the lawyers for the defense make tons of money as the cases go from court to court and drag on for years.
but the real payoff goes to those who succeed in bringing the lawsuit and prosecuting it--all of them stand to gain millions--not because they were harmed more--but because they gain more money the more people they pile on a lawsuit.
Most of us have gotten a least one of these notices in the mail, stating that we owned or used a certain business and notifying us that we have been made a part of the lawsuit. The only way to not be a part is to actually write back that you do not want to be a part of it--otherwise you are. In each case of mine (I used to throw those notifications away) sooner or later, I get a check for about 47.00 or less or a coupon good for one tune up, seat belt repair, or 2.33 taken off my utility bill for 6 months....
HERE IS SOME ADVICE: WHEN YOU GET NOTIFIED OF A CLASS ACTION--OPT OUT. Those lawsuits are not there to bring justice to millions or to help out all the victims--it is there to make a ton of money for the lawyers who bring the suit (win or lose) the lawyers who defend the suit (win or lose) and to use millions of people who will pretty much receive nothing, in exchanged for being used to make the payoff big.
Those 6 Walmart women will be happy if they win but what do you think the avg worker will get? do you really think they will get thousands in back pay? That is not usually how it works. At some point, Walmart may settle and part of that settlement will be that only a % of what should be paid out will be paid out.
This could mean that a woman with a pay differential might have been shorted around 30K to 150K over the past 10 years and due to the settlement, she will be getting a check for between 2 and 5 thousand dollars. Class action participants have no say and cannot appeal, part of joining is that you lose your rights to have your individual case heard and agree to abide by the settlement or judgment.
This is a horrible thought but entirely possible:
Walmart could offer a settlement where they pay a huge block of money to plaintiffs and their lawyers, offer up an apology and a token 1.00 to all the class action victims then promise to promote women fairly from now on. If the plaintiffs go for it (and they might--they are not out to fight for the 'little guy' but to make money) then all the people who helped make it a big lawsuit will get NOTHING for letting themselves be used.
Walmart is being reamed and the 6 women are puppets of the lawyers but will make a lot of money--and all the rest? Just a huge amount of LEVERAGE to force Walmart to settle up rather than go to court and lose a judgment.
There should be no class action lawsuits--because they are essentially blackmail/extortion tools made legal.
There is a reason that women make less than men. Because they live for conflict and that causes problems in the workplace.
They are unreliable... They use up all of their leave as soon as they get it. My god if I hear of this one girls diahrea one more time I am going to puke. She has every ailment known to man. Every one of the girls in my office is always going home because of a headache or something else.
I only have know a couple women that were worth working with.
So six women are parties to this, or 1.5 million?
OK they settle for 3 billion.
Atty's take out 35% leaving 1.95 billion.
Then the Attys take out cost of the suit we will say 500 million.
Your now down to 1.45 billion divided by 1.5 million women you get $966.66 payable over 3 years.
So who one the Attys who lost the Women and Wal-Mart.
To make up the 3 billion they will now fire 5000 employees who will receive our tax money for unemployment and assistance.
These are whacko liberals starting this crap. LEAVE WALMART ALONE, FREAKS. Walmart has saved my family thousands of dollars!!!!!! How DARE these goons think they can DICTATE to a company. Walmart can do what they WANT. These crackpots don't like it, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.......... Go to Iraq!!!!!!!!!
================================================================
Yet another reason to avoid Walmart.
Rubbing elbows with the lower-middle class ....
YUCK !!!
And I'll bet everthing you buy is made in the U.S.A.
=======================================================
I do the best that I can.