Texas Employment Law Blog : San Antonio Employment Discrimination Lawyer & Attorney : McKinney Law Firm : Sexual Harassment, Wrongful Termination : Texas

Today, the Supreme Court blocked a class action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of women who work there.

As I predicted here, the court ruled that the lawsuit cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.

The case started in 2000, when a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California named Betty Dukes filed a sex discrimination claim against her employer. Dukes claims that, despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher, salaried position. Wal-Mart's position is that Dukes clashed with a female Wal-Mart supervisor and was disciplined for admittedly returning late from lunch breaks.

In June 2001, the lawsuit began in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs seek to represent 1.6 million women, including all those who work or have previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998. In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification. Wal-Mart appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.

Today's ruling from the Supreme Court means that each member of the class will need to obtain a lawyer to represent her and pursue her claim individually against the retailing behemoth.  Undoubtedly, many or most will be unable to do so and will therefore never get their day in Court.

 

Links: 

• SCOTUS Opinion
• Previous Article with Links to Briefing and Oral Argument

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., an ongoing sexual discrimination lawsuit, is the largest civil rights class action suit in United States history. It charges Wal-Mart with discriminating against women in promotions, pay, and job assignments in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case started in 2000, when a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California named Betty Dukes filed a sex discrimination claim against her employer. Dukes claims that, despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher, salaried position. Wal-Mart's position is that Dukes clashed with a female Wal-Mart supervisor and was disciplined for admittedly returning late from lunch breaks.

In June 2001, the lawsuit began in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs seek to represent 1.6 million women, including all those who work or have previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998.  In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the class certification.  Wal-Mart appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 

Yesterday, the SCOTUS heard oral arguments in the case. 

Links:

• Transcript of the Oral Argument
• Audio of the Oral Argument [Usually posted within a week or so]

Links to Court Filings:

• Brief for Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Brief for Respondent Betty Dukes
• Reply Brief for Petitioner Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
• Ninth Circuit's Opinion Below

Links to Background Materials and Analysis:

• Links page to most of the briefing in the case from Impact Fund website
• SCOTUSblog Analysis
• LawMemo Blog Analysis
• Workplace Prof Blog Analysis
• Ohio Employer Law Blog Analysis
• Lawffice Space Analysis
• New York Times: "Supreme Court to Weigh Sociology Issue in Wal-Mart Discrimination Case"

Prediction:  Close call but I'm going to predict a victory for Wal-Mart on this one. 

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court's 2010 Fall Docket has been released.  Many employment lawyers have noted that while the current court has taken a dim view of employee's rights in general, one area where they have generally supported employees is in retaliation cases.  

This Fall, the Court has taken three employment cases.  Two of the three are retaliation cases.  

Here is the basic rundown on this fall term's cases along with some links to the lower court's opinion and case briefing for each case:

• Thompson v. North American Stainless
  • In Thompson, the Court will decide whether someone closely connected with an employee who complains of discrimination -- here the employee's co-worker/fiance -- is protected from retaliation. The fiance was fired and has brought a retaliation case.
    • Opinion Below
    • Petitioner's Brief
    • Respondent's Brief - Not Yet Filed
    • Oral Argument: December 7, 2010
    • Notes: Justice Kagan is recused in this case.
    • Oral Argument
    • Supreme Court Opinion

• Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
  • In Kasten, the Court will determine whether an employee's making an oral, instead of a written, complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act is protected conduct under the statute's anti-retaliation provision.
    • Opinion Below
    • Petitioner's Brief
    • Respondent's Brief
    • Oral Argument Transcript
    • Oral Argument AUDIO RECORDING
    • Notes: Justice Kagan is recused in this case.

• Staub v. Proctor Hospital
  • Here the Court will be addressing what lawyers commonly refer to as the "cat's paw" theory of liability.  The question presented is whether an employer, without discriminatory motive, may be liable for firing an employee based on information or advice from biased managers.
    • Opinion Below
    • Petitioner's Brief
    • Respondent's Brief
    • Oral Argument Transcript
    • Supreme Court Opinion
    • Notes: Justice Kagan is recused in this case.

While none may make the front page of the local paper, all three of these cases are interesting issues and important to practitioners.  I'll be watching them closely.  You can bookmark this page if you wish as I will update the links here with the oral arguments and opinions as they become available.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court issued two important decisions this week regarding whether retaliation claims may be brought under 42 U.S.C. s 1981 and the ADEA section dealing with federal employees. 

Gomez-Perez v. Potter, No. 06-1321 (U.S. May 27, 2008) - The plaintiff in Gomez-Perez alleged that after she complained about age discrimination at her federal employer, she was retaliated against in various ways.  She challenged that retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).  The issue was whether the portion of the ADEA that deals with federal employers, which was silent as to this issue, impliedly created a protection for federal employees against retaliation.  The Court held that such a cause of action did exist in such circumstances.


CBOCS West Inc. v. Humphries, No. 06-1431 (U.S. May 27, 2008) (Section 1981) - Similarly in the CBOCS decision, the Court found an implied protection against retaliation under the Section 1981 reconstruction era race discrimination statute. 

Frankly I was pleasantly surprised by the these decisions given the fight that was had over similar issues under Title IX a few years ago and the intervening change in the Court's membership. 

Here is some more analysis from around the employment-law blogosphere:

• George's Employment Law Blog
• Jottings of an Employers Lawyer
• Workplace Prof Blog
• Developments in EEOC Law

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks