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. Conkfritter

    So much for the liberal leaning of the Court. SO people.................don't shop at WALMART. We are the people.So quit complaining and just take your own action and do not shop WALMART!!! Put up or shut up. The US is becoming a Capitalist Facsist state. Big business over little guy. And we put them there. All the consevative GOP lovers.

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

      And then the government or should i say right wing will force through some package where by we give walmart money to make up for theirloses..too large to fail

      June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
  2. josh

    Reason in 3 words: Huge Government Payoff

    June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  3. aa

    Of course why would the supreme court will do something right

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

    There's a 10th Supreme Court Justice, she's called 'Prima Donna'.

    "No darling, this case is just too large for us, bring us a smaller case, but not too small, we need to stay relevant."

    June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  5. Barbara Geoffroy

    Just STOP shopping there. Go an extra 5 or 10 miles and pay a bit more, at least you can then sleep at night. It is time to bring this monster down!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  6. Justin

    WALMART RULES THEY CAN NOT BE STOPPED PEOPLE WANT TOO COMPLAIN THAT WALMART THIS WALMART THAT BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TOO IT YOU ALL SHOP THERE TOO SAVE MONEY HUH THOUGHT SO

    June 20, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
  7. Andrew

    Although they discriminate against women in some or many of their stores, this suit assumed that every Wal-mart manager discriminated. That is wrong. That would only be good for lawyers. You can't assume that every Wal-mart discriminated indiscriminately against women. That is taking being prejudice to beat prejudice, and it probably isn't true. Their must be some Wal-marts that have women or men managing them that promote based on merit only, people like to make money. Or some that even swing the pendulum the other way and promote women over men. Therefore the suit is foolish.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
    • AGeek

      Without a trial, the complete scope is not able to be known. Therein lies the entire problem with this decision!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
  8. CBREEZE

    I've always been under the impression that "class action" meant group and the courts set up the class action due to there being too many individual lawsuits regarding the same action(s). Never knew there was a limit to the amount of people that would be in a class suit......news to me......let all the Wal-Mart employees start filing separate claims and see what happens.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
    • YIPPY!

      How can anyone justify how each of those idiots were discriminated? Just a stupid lawsuit which wasted a lot of money... meaning Walmart had to increase their prices to pay for their defense. Without this ruling, what's next? A bunch of illegal Mexicans filing a class action lawsuit against America for discrimination because they can't get US citizenship?

      June 20, 2011 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
  9. Joe

    this entire generation is too sue-happy. disgusting. one person can get angry at an employer, start a class action suit, hundreds of thousands jump on board and you literally destroy a company the size of walmart. All for a quick buck? Are you going to replace the thousands of stores nationwide where people buy their things?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
  10. YIPPY!

    FINALLY! The supreme court has done something RIGHT! There was NO DISCRIMINATION! JUST A BUNCH OF IDIOTS CRYING WOLF. Lastly, HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Those lawyers representing those idiots ARE NOW CRYING! LOL They worked on a contingency plan... meaning NO PAY!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
  11. YadaYada1

    Welcome to America LLC. This is the best country money can buy!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
  12. Barnstormer

    "Steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king." – Bob Dylan

    June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
  13. David

    This wasn't about the unions, folks. This is about the U.S. Supreme Court not wanting to deal with the issue.

    I don't shop at Wal-Mart and never will. Yes Wal-Mart treats its employees badly, and yes Wal-Mart is responsible for feeding China's manufacturing sector and thus eliminating U.S. jobs.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
    • YIPPY!

      Well... next time you go shopping at other stores like Target, KMart, Whole Foods, etc... all of their products are imported. The reason why many products are not produced in the USA is because Americans demand CHEAP FOOD but EMPLOYEES AKA UNION demand unrealistic pay and benefits. Each No wonder why big companies in the US, especially those who are unionized, are in BIG FINANCIAL DEBT... look at our entire federal and state governmental agencies, they are running in billions of dollars in debt because of unions.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:04 am | Report abuse |
  14. Frank

    Women just don't work as hard as men, take more time off and cause far more personal conflicts. 🙂

    June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
  15. Gene Voss

    Nauseated by the Wal-Mart ruling. The message? The little guys (or gals, in this case) can't come together in a large enough group to challenge the big company. No, you have to stay small and easily squishable. And now that unions are d.o.a.... maybe these ladies should form a PAC?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
    • Dave

      You don't like it- then start your own business and see how easy it is!

      June 20, 2011 at 11:01 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