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. Frank

    Women simply don't work as hard as men, take more time of than men and cause more personal conflicts than men.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Henry

      Frank, what planet are you from? Your comment is one of the most ignorant, biased, and bigoted comments I have ever seen. You don't have a clue!

      June 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • Frank

      Earth Henry, Earth. Ever been here? It's quite nice.

      June 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • whycantyousee

      @Frank...most of what you say is true...but it is only because dear Frank, we carry the entire, house, yard, work...we dont get to punch out at 5pm, have dinner served to us, and then put our feet up...kinda makes us cranky...dont be such a terd...

      June 20, 2011 at 8:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • BB

      Gosh every place I have ever worked the women did double the out put of men. Except for glamour jobs that were palling around with the boss we were told not to hire men because they'd be losers or lazy and resentful for working for such low pay. Bosses would pay single men more because they'd have to support a family someday. Ha. And the men spent half the day back biting and screwing each other instead of getting stuff done.

      June 20, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
  2. joe

    This is exactly the problem with ret ared liberals, once they convince people that the government owes everyone it's just a small step for them to start getting people to believe that private businesses owe people something.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Mrs. Sixx

      @Joe - Did you bother to read any of the depositions? Did you bother to read anything about the case other than what you read on CNN? These women were discriminated against. That's an actual fact. So, why don't you quit speaking about things you do not know - and besides, what the heck do liberals have to do with anything?

      June 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm | Report abuse |
  3. joe

    Meant reta rded miss typed.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:13 pm | Report abuse |
  4. EEO Guy

    Okay, first things first. Wal-Mart is not the only employer that discriminates actively or passively against women in the U.S. The Supreme Court ruling simply means they did not want to take on the gravity and scope of such a problem. Now, for what caught my EEO eye. Will someoene with common sense explain to me why a story about Wal-Mart and gender bias has a photo of a African-American male and female, who appear to be shoppers going to their car? Now some will ask, why does it matter? Glad you asked. IMO this was a reckless attempt to link African-Americans to the story of (gender based job) discrimination, which turned to be "victory" for Wal-mart. This reinforces the idea that discrimination is just about color and/or race. While the lawsuit itself was about gender equality, I guess the person who wrote this piece wanted to do their part to perpetuate the concept of black/white discrimination banking on the fact that most would read the headline, see the attached photo and chalk it up as another loss for African-Americans. The media needs to stop with the propaganda, which is devisive in nature. When discrimination (real or perceived) occurs we all lose.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Christina Fox

      I don't think that having a picture of black people means "crazy liberals" are trying to make it a race issue. If they were white, would it mean that this article was trying to make every demarcation of minority status as mutually exclusive? No, because that is ridiculous. I think the least expensive photo they could get which was also slightly relevant was some random shoppers in front of Walmart. Talk about 'perceived discrimination'.

      June 20, 2011 at 4:33 pm | Report abuse |
  5. joe

    Frank is right about women taking more time off and causing more personal conflicts,sorry Henry it's just a fact of life. It's not like men get pregnant and have menstrual cycles. As for women not working as hard I don't know I've work with some men who were pretty lazy and some women who worked as hard as anyone I've ever worked with so that's a wash.

    June 20, 2011 at 3:49 pm | Report abuse |
  6. joe

    @Mrs Sixx, Did you read every single one of the complaints doubtful. Do you want to know who is really behind this suit, Class Action lawyers, they are the worst of the worst when it comes to lawyers, truly the bottom feeders of the legal system. I was sent a couple of forms from class action lawyers to enjoin a suit they were filing supposedly on my behalf, problem was there was no just reason for it. BTW guess who benefits from class action suits-not the "injured parties" it's the lawyers who receive the lions share of class action suits, around 80%, the scraps are divided up among the thousands of plaintiffs. That is the reason the lawyers want to file this as a class action suit so bad.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
  7. joe

    @Mrs Sixx: Apparently you have no reasoning skills so let me say it as plain as I can, when I was talking about liberals I was talking about the mentality of a majority of the people posting who think private businesses owe them something the same way that they believe government owes them something. Don't know how to make it any plainer than that.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:08 pm | Report abuse |
  8. john

    For all you who want to see Walmart "get theirs" and go under, I'll be laughing my a ss off if you ever have an employer that "gets theirs" and you end up with out a job. Yep, that would be funny as hell.

    June 20, 2011 at 4:48 pm | Report abuse |
  9. Scott Severin

    "Okay, first things first. Wal-Mart is not the only employer that discriminates actively or passively against women in the U.S. The Supreme Court ruling simply means they did not want to take on the gravity and scope of such a problem."
    Most incorrect.In today’s decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court unanimously found that the Ninth Circuit had jumped the gun in certifying what would have been one of the largest class actions in history, a job-bias action against the giant retailer on behalf of female employees. A five-justice majority led by Justice Scalia found that the plaintiffs had clearly not met the requirements needed to have the case certified for class treatment; four dissenters led by Justice Ginsburg would have sent the case back for more consideration.

    June 20, 2011 at 5:45 pm | Report abuse |
  10. kat

    sounds like more "too big to fail" logic. deregulating the banking industry (which failed due to out of control greed and may still bring the world economy to its knees), deregulating the oil industry (which led to record profits and one of the world's greatest ecological disasters), starting wars in two different countries based on bogus information, farming American jobs overseas when Americans had the unmitigated gall to demand living wages, nope that's not the liberals. It won't take long. Soon there will be no one left who can afford to buy anything at walmart, or anywhere else.
    s for the ignorant misogynists, i'm saving my energy. logic would be completely beyond you. wallow in your ignorance and keep believing everything FOX news tells you.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:17 pm | Report abuse |
  11. Aarn

    These women were not discriminated against.

    June 20, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |

    I propose a boycott based on the days of the week such as Sunday surely see Sam's sinking sales. This could be expanded to other days with slogans ready for other days when Walmart starts offering specials on the days designated. Such as Friday finds food far from Walmart. This would target women shoppers who would make Walmart wonder why Wednesday has weak sales.

    June 20, 2011 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
  13. whycantyousee

    Ok, so I am a woman, but I do have a problem with this lawsuit and I am very glad that the Surpreme Couirt ruled it out. Have you been to a Walmart lately? I do not wish to be mean, but the truth is, just because you get the job does not mean you can be rude, lazy, and even discriminatory to others. Walmart does hire minorities...woman...and new citizens that come from impoverished countries...where they had little educaiton and even less ethical training. They come to the U.S., jump on the "It is all about ME wagon," and then blame everyone when they don't become rich and famous over-night. Take a ride to the Walmart in Green Valley, NY...that is a good place to start...see what kind of service you get there from the women employees. (Especially if you are White.) It is a different world and I do not think anyone is really paying attention, they are only listening to the "Poor me," cries from those who really have not yet learned what pride in one's work, kindness, ethical treatment of everyone, and ambition really is. Thank God for the Surpreme Court decision, at least someone has made it just a little bit tougher to sue your boss when you are the problem.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:02 pm | Report abuse |
  14. James

    Never thought I would see the day the US Supreme Court would be swayed by the largest retail store in the USA if not the world. What a black mark on them. You are stupid if you don't believe that Walmart isn't biased against Females, written or not in the employee guidelines. Walmart has a free hand now. Shame on the Supreme Court and Walmart–

    June 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm | Report abuse |
  15. john

    @sam: The laziest workers I've ever seen were union workers. How many union workers does it take to screw in a light bulb? Eight four to hold the ladder one to put it in and three to supervise.

    June 20, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • pcdragon

      How many idiots does it take to post a blog against American workers?

      June 20, 2011 at 10:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bob Jones

      Nice blanket statement there.

      You're good at making blanket statements and stereotypes, it's too bad the only other thing you are good at is being stupid.

      June 21, 2011 at 12:53 pm | 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