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. Darrel

    As I read through these I'm amazed how many believe we live in a democracy. We are an Oligaracy people. Rule by the wealthy. Have been for the last 40 years and getting more restrictive. Mack Reynolds had it right 40 years ago and was dismissed as "merely a science fiction writer". Your childern will be real corporate drones.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  2. Had enough

    Watch out Walmart...

    June 20, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  3. Bal-Mart

    I think it is time to start blocking some Pay Checks to these clowns. Not just the supreme court but our entire government! The American people can chnge this if they want to but no one seems to give a crap.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
    • educatedguess

      we're democracy alright where most people are dumb enough to think that being narrowly and shortsightedly selfish is the winning formula.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
    • Cindy

      I think women should boycott Walmart Let's stop shopping and picket outside every store maybe the big boys won't get their big paychecks and bonus checks. Do they realize how many women shop there. I believe this would do significant damage and make a very $$$ statement.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:33 am | Report abuse |
  4. Dave from GA

    Please remember that the Supreme court justice team is consisted of the conservative majority. That is how it is resulted in.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
    • Rick

      It was a 9-0 ruling. Had anyone on the bench felt this should have gone forward as a class, they would have issued a dissent. They didn't and your conservative bashing response goes down the toilet.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
  5. Allen N Wollscheidt

    I wonder what the price was to obtain this decision ? ?

    June 20, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  6. 2Cents

    The Law Suit was about money anyways.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  7. GaboonViper67

    Liberals are to be thanked for the policies that led companies to head overseas, driven away from America by over regulation and taxation. Thanks Liberals, thanks for doing yourselves in. Now the ERA movement, Women's Libbers and the rest of the Socialist femmes can celebrate their own trainwreck and swallow their own medicine.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Thomas

      Democracy and human rights are more important that economic domination. Typical black-hearted conservative, you only care about making money for your own personal gain.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Mike in MN

      you know, you might have an argument about it being taxes and regulations if those companies were paying their overseas employees the same as they would American workers but they don't even come close to doing that.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Curtom10

      Dude, this is not a liberal or conservative thing my friend. The problem is that all politicians both Democrat and Republican are enacting laws that enable corporations and bankers to literally steal money from the public. This is why no politician that truly serves the public should be taking campaign money from anyone. By taking campaign money you then become indebted to those that gave it to you. This happens on BOTH sides of the fence which is why democracy no longer exists.

      Trust me, you are being screwed just as much as the so called "liberals" you allege to despise. Again, there is no such thing as a "liberal" or "conservative" those are simply terms created as a distraction for people to argue over while the banks and corporations run off with your money. We need to come together to put an end to banks and corporations writing our laws. Otherwise, we are ALL doomed to be corporate drones!

      June 20, 2011 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
  8. Random Anonymous Blackmail

    Courts ruling for big business, color me shocked.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  9. Pottymouth

    supreme court..Wal-Mart shareholders???

    June 20, 2011 at 11:25 am | Report abuse |
  10. John

    When the court says it is too large for a class-action lawsuit I think it is actually trying to protect not the corperation but those injured by it. I could be wrong but it sounds more like they think with all those involved forcing them all into one group will not really represent all those injured by Wallmarts practices so the court would rather each person so injured or smaller more alike groups each go after Wallmart individually. I also think this can actually make it much harder on Wallmart as it could now be defending itself from hundreds or even thousands of lawsuits instead of being able to fight just one. I don't know but I also don't assume this is a by default a bad judgement I just don't know the case or reasons for their decisions. Guess like the rest I will need to do some reading so I can make an educated judgement about whether the court has done the right thing.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  11. Joey Isotta-Fraschini

    I hope that I'm the pig to whom somebody referred, since I made the first comment.
    You can't turn a sow's ear of a case into an actual civil-rights issue just because our society is overly litigious.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  12. sf

    "Too big?" are you effin kidding me?! Supreme court judges is ANOTHER position in this country that should have term limits! since when does a lawsuit become "too big"?!!! what the eff?!

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  13. Jean

    Another lesson in Lobbying 101.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  14. matt

    Rule 23. Class Actions
    (a) Prerequisites.
    One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all members only if:

    (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable,

    (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,

    (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and

    (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
  15. tcp

    GREAT news! Congratulations Wal Mart! Courts ruling against frivolous, unwarranted garbage suits!

    June 20, 2011 at 11:26 am | Report abuse |
    • KC

      Did you ever work there???

      June 20, 2011 at 11:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Emily

      Amen! A unanimous decision against lawyer greed!!!

      June 20, 2011 at 11:28 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