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. gino

    Make no mistake. This bunch of right-wing Injustices is coming for you next. Don't think you are safe–unless you are a multi-millionaire or an billion dollar corporation. They want to take your money and your freedom and give it to them via Koch Brothers etc.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • obsthetimes

      You don't have money!. You're neck deep in debt!. 49% of you pay zero income tax and the government is financed by Chinese bond buyers. When I read, financed by the US taxpayer. I laugh. What taxpayer?
      Plus, you constantly want to litigate against perceived injustices instead of putting your head down and working !?
      Plus 1: You want to destroy whatever business is left in this country. Thank god! that the supreme court shut down this stupid lawsuit.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      gino, reality is calling. Will you answer?

      The decision was 9-0 in favor of Wal-Mart, and thus had nothing to do with your perceived notions of "right wing" or "left wing" justices. Next time, please make at least a token effort to discover a few actual facts before you spew your partisan idiocy all over my internet.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
  2. Stacy Woods

    I see why it didn't make it to court,everyone is trying to cash in.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  3. Mike Hill

    This is Bush's fault! They should burn all Republicans at the stake...oh wait...then who's money would we have to squander away? Hold on and let me think....what? Who's on first? This taste like purple.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Shawn

      lmao...hahaha. funniest thing I have read all day!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Etuck24

      Yeah! Blame Bush! Take the easy way out!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  4. guy

    WHAT A JOKE...BIG BIZ LOOKING AFTER BIG sad! At least people should know not to work for WalMart....or to even shop there.....

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  5. swin

    This article is very incomplete so I may be jumping to conclusions but the article implies that the Supreme Court is saying that it is alright to discriminate as long as you discriminate against a large enough group of people.

    Also, how come these articles never tell you how EACH Supreme Court Justice voted?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      Because the article assumes that even a semi-literate citizen could find that information out of himself. The Supreme Court has this thing called a website, and wonder of wonders, all its opinions are posted there in handy PDF format for any person capable of reading to take a look at. For your information, the decision was 9-0 in favor of Wal-Mart. I discovered that by using approximately 11 seconds of my time to take a look a the actual opinion.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:51 am | Report abuse |
  6. sam

    First it's too big to fail, now too big to be sued. The middle class might as well pack it in.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  7. Client09

    go to college and quit complaining

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
    • Kiah graham

      70 percent of the people who went to college can't find jobs, so they work there!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  8. Etuck24

    LOL @ the Supreme Court. What a joke.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  9. Saboth

    Is there any doubt the SC is in the pockets of big business? Just about every ruling in recent memory has been in favor of corporations. From ruling in favor of arbitration (which rules in favor of companies about 80% of the time), to ruling corporations shouldn't have campaign contribution limitations to this...yeah, we know whose side the courts and Congress is on, and it isn't the people of the United States, but their corporate overlords.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  10. Buck

    Too Big to fail?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:36 am | Report abuse |
  11. Angus001

    What? Americans can't count on a law suite for their retirement?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
  12. Joe

    What else would you expect? Have you seen the "makeup" of the court these days?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
    • Matthew

      Since the decision was 9-0 in favor of Wal-Mart, I can't think of what "makeup" you might be referring to. In a 9-0 decision, the only relevant makeup would be that the SC consists of 9 human beings as opposed to 9 horses or something like that. What makeup did you have in mind? Surely it can't be political makeup, because that would, of course, be utterly irrelevant in the face of a unanimous decision. And a scholar like you would surely have taken the time to find out that it was a unanimous decision before suggesting implicitly that some particular political affiliation led to the outcome.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:58 am | Report abuse |
  13. vinny

    We are too lawsuit happy in this country. The major reason our country looks to outsource as many jobs as possible is because of garbage like this. Frivilous lawsuits, union greed, its all a big reason why your customer service rep isnt American when you call the 800 number. So you all wanted to bankrupt the largest employer in the country? really? Over nothing. Tell that to the families of the 600k employees who work at the store. That would do real wonders for our economy.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
  14. Bhavin

    What a joke! Supreme court throwing a case out because too many people are injusticed in this country. CONGRATULATIONS WALMART! YOU SUCCEEDED IN CORRUPTING THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES!


    June 20, 2011 at 10:37 am | Report abuse |
  15. La, La, La

    Conservative judges in the majority, what did you expect? I hate Conservatives.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:37 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