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. mark in arkansas

    I guess Wally-world is finally too big to fail.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  2. Greg Gilbert

    The problem with many of these lawsuits is the businesses are getting sued and having to pay due to differences that exist in groups due to other reasons than discrimination. Women and other groups make differences in pay and benefits that aren't always attributed to discrimination.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  3. geoz

    Some are too big to fail. Walmart is too big to sue.
    So, if the violation of the law is big enough, you are no longer responsible in the corporate-dominated SCOTUS. Does walmart sponser a couple chairs there?

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Duane

      Let's get real here. There's no such thing as a little or too big about breaking the law. It's illegal to discriminate. And it's shameful the SCOTUS went above the law. This is the worst decision I have ever seen in my life.

      June 20, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
  4. David

    people, this was a UNANIMOUS decision. Honestly, some people just like to attack things they don't understand out of pure hatred for opposition...

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  5. carl winslow

    Arabs throw acid on womens faces for not wearing a veil

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  6. Ernie

    Thank God the SC is trying to save captialism. If the libs have their way, free enterprise would be dead; then who will pay the tax bill? Save American Business & you make jobs.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Jones

      Oh god, you're being serious.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:48 am | Report abuse |
  7. Simone Thomas

    Of course they blocked it. Did anyone really think we would be reading in the news that Walmart lost?

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

    This case was another attempt by greedy lawyers trying to hit the jackpot. We need tort reform in a big way. Legal costs add nothing to our economy and they are a drag on economic growth.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  9. Brain69x

    The man wins again.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  10. Jerald A. Goffney

    Are you kidding me, when wrong is being done and you look to highest court in the nation and they say it's o.k. to discriminate because the case is to massive. They are all in the same bed together no doubt: Walmart + The Supreme Court = lots of money. So you who are without money is just without.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
  11. John smith

    Walmart is great. They give retards who can't get a better job a place to work. without these remedial jobs they would just keep walking around in the mall all day. Women should be glad there even allowed to work somewhere like walmart. Shut up feminotzi and go sweep something.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Simone Thomas

      Hmm....wait until you or someone in your family is effected. See how lucky you feel then. Just because you think your status in society is so much better then someone who is metally challenged .....or an elderly person...... you're quick to let green glob come out of your brain and mouth. One day, someone you care for will be treated differently because a corporation shares your disgusting views on individuals who are trying to be productive........but also be treated fairly.

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

      Ok Simone, but how exactly is it that retards are productive? All they do is cost money to the tax payers, and ruin the lives of their families. Exponential overpopulation is becoming a huge problem, and keeping retards alive is a crime against the rest of society. Ever heard of survival of the fittest? Thats how its supposed to work, and taking care of those who can't take care of themselves is why were going to suffocate this planet. We keep way to many people alive that nature wants to kill off for good reason. Like giving medicine to people who live in grass huts in the jungle.. Let them die, they had their shot at evolution and they blew it because the y would rather chuck spears and dance around fired than go work in an office...

      June 20, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
  12. ldean50

    well said jamesbrummel . . . who owns America? The corporations.

    June 20, 2011 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  13. Matt

    Too big to fail? Sound familiar? So women get taken while WalMart pockets the cash? Supreme Court you failed HUGE for the people. Every day another step closer to We The Government, Assigned to Rule the People. Boycott time!

    June 20, 2011 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill Chiappi

      You do NOT blame an entire company for what a few indiviuals have done.....Get a Life Libs!!

      June 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
  14. Hmmmmm...

    I don't get why people think corporations should not have infinite liability. You can't put a corporation in jail, hitting them in the wallet is the only thing you can do to punish them. Soon enough, it just becomes a cost of doing business and it doesn't matter who they hurt or whose rights they violate because their liability is limited. They can do whatever they want and it will just cost them a few pennies. No one ever says, "Well, since you killed TOO MANY people, we won't put you in jail." So how can a company have wronged "too many people" to be sued? There have to be consequences for actions... I guess I should incorporate myself so I will have some rights....

    June 20, 2011 at 10:41 am | Report abuse |
  15. bill

    so a case is now too big for the supreme court,what a bunch of wooses.
    then it is time to get some one that will,fire the whole bunch

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

      Bill, you cant fire Supreme Court Justices unless they do something really stupid or wrong. Sorry.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:44 am | Report abuse |
    • LOL

      The class suing was too big. That is, it involves too many plaintiffs to be considered one suit.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:45 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill Clinton

      Good thing you know what you are talking about.

      June 20, 2011 at 10:46 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