Supreme Court rules for Wal-Mart in massive job discrimination lawsuit
June 20th, 2011
10:21 AM ET

Supreme Court rules for Wal-Mart in massive job discrimination lawsuit

The Supreme Court put the brakes on a massive job discrimination lawsuit against mega-retailer Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., saying sweeping class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was simply too large.

The ruling Monday was a big victory for the nation's largest private employer, and the business community at large.

The high-profile case– perhaps the most closely watched of the high court's term– is among the most important dealing with corporate versus worker rights that the justices have ever heard, and could eventually impact nearly every private employer, large and small.

Toobin: Why justices shut down Wal-Mart case

Gisel Ruiz, Executive Vice President for Wal-Mart U.S., said in a statement the company was "pleased" with the court's ruling.

"Walmart has had strong policies against discrimination for many years. The Court today unanimously rejected class certification and, as the majority made clear, the plaintiffs’ claims were worlds away from showing a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy," the statement said. "By reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the majority effectively ends this class action lawsuit.

“Walmart has a long history of providing advancement opportunities for our female associates and will continue its efforts to build a robust pipeline of future female leaders.”

The case is Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes (10-277).

soundoff (948 Responses)
  1. Mr. Mark

    Unbelievable, headed to Canada!!!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Make it ASAP!!!! We don't want you here anyway.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:55 am | Report abuse |
  2. William

    Attentionn Wal-mart shoppers....we like screwing over women in the workplace. Don't like it shop somewhere else. Attn Supreme Court.... Don't wanna do your job? Resign!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
  3. Michael

    Okay did anyone actually read the article before commenting? The Court did not side with Wal-Mart because they were correct; the Court did not side with the plaintiffs because there are simply too many of them to fairly hear the case. Hundreds of thousands of plaintiffs? I'd guess that many of them have real cases, but greedy lawyers let anyone who wanted to jump on the band wagon and mucked up their own case. This was not a victory for Wal-Mart or corporate America, this was simply the Court saying "this is dumb."

    June 20, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Hahaha i agree!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • richunix

      RIGHT, I would wish people read the ruling, before commenting....

      June 20, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Mott the Hoople

      Agreeing to not hear the case has the same result as agreeing with the defendant. Their argument that there are "too many plaintiffs" is a weak and specious argument. I'm guessing the Supremes have Wal-mart investments in their retirement portfolios. Also, there are businesses in this country that have to be propped up, because they are "too big to fail"; is that another reason that Wal-mart has been saved?

      June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  4. sleming

    Just won a class action against Walmart. They were clocking us out while we worked. While we won, these managers kept their jobs and continue their illegal and unfair habits. Walmart will always win in the end, even whn they do payout.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • Rob

      Get a new job then.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:56 am | Report abuse |
  5. John

    Union sucks!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
  6. AaronT3

    What is the "LEGAL LIMIT" that says this case is too large, I mean is there an actual number somewhere? I think we should all stop paying our mortgages and maybe it will be TOO many for forecloses. (I know out there eh...)

    June 20, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
  7. bob

    Once again the corporate run government wins again.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  8. Brain69x

    Looks like CNN is editing the comentary and pulling out all the hard hitting posts again. Watch this one dissappear.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  9. Ken Scott

    I guess Wal-Mart is too big to fail.

    Oh wait.....that's the LIBERAL agenda. What was SCOTUS thinking???

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Tal

      You do realize that Wal-Mart is a private company right? And that unregulated privatization is a conservative position?

      June 20, 2011 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
  10. boka

    Disgusting. Walmart is the worst corporation ever. I will never shop at that dump.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Mott the Hoople

      Remember when Wal-mart used to tout that the products they sold were "proudly made in America"? They quietly cancelled that "campaign" a few years ago. They realize Americans don't care where the crap is made (China), as long as they get the lowest price. Always. Now they sell toys made with lead, Christmas decorations with counterfeit UL labels, poisonous pet food, etc., etc.. etc.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:00 am | Report abuse |
  11. Joel

    To everyone complaining about the Supreme Court being unwilling to take on the case because it is so large, get a clue what you are arguing about (my favorite comment is the one calling the SC "wusses"). The problem is that the bloodsucking lawyers for the plaintiffs are trying to say that every female employee of Wal-Mart, in any location, was discriminated against if any of them were, which is ridiculous. The SC had the common sense to make its decision today, and to force the group claiming discrimination to have some common thread other than their gender.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  12. Tal

    I cant say that I know many details about this case...

    But too large? Theyre the Supreme Court. How can a case be too large for the Supreme Court?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  13. ricardo

    another example of a declining superpower grabbing at straws in opposition to its founding principles. see you in the asian-built gutter.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  14. t o double d

    All of the girl workers at walmart are complete morons and therefore i hope they lose if they file again. They make shoppin there miserable cuz you wait in line foreva cuz they are too dumb to work the register. Not to mention they do everything else there slow cuz thex are all fat pigs. Oink! Oink!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:51 am | Report abuse |
  15. Glen

    The American people only have themselves to blame. We are the ones shopping at Walmart. If anyone has an issue, it is because cheap Americans will only pay the lowest price for an item, and therefore Walmart survives big time. What do you think would happen if most Americans just stopped shopping at Walmart and bought their goods somewhere else? The problem is we are all too selfish, lazy, and really don't give a damn. If there was a huge boycott against Walmart, I would be in.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • Tyokol

      Fool, your conspiracy theory hysteria runs counter to the very capitalist establishment that feeds you every day. Be grateful for what you have been given.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • edjoh

      Don't fault the American people for being bargain hunters and shopping at Walmart.
      But do blame them for electing conservative offlcials who support the policies that support big buisness over the rights of citizens.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35