On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed a class-action lawsuit by 1.5 million former and current female Walmart employees. But why did the Justices refuse to hear the largest sex discrimination case in American history?
According to TIME, the Supreme Court split 5-4 — along the usual conservative/liberal party lines — on whether the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. met class-action standards. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, the lawsuit failed to show any “commonality” among the plaintiffs besides their “sex and this lawsuit.” (All three female Justices dissented.)
The suit, which became class-action back in 2004, cites figures from 2001. Among their chief complaints were that women workers filled 70% of the hourly positions at Walmart but just 33% of the managerial positions, all in a reportedly insensitive company culture. The Associated Press writes that since 2004, things at Walmart have changed, with the corporation creating special mentoring and training programs geared towards women.
To clarify, the Supreme Court didn’t actually rule on whether Walmart actually discriminated against women. However, by dismissing the lawsuit, the Court makes it more difficult for employees to file class-action suits successfully. As for the women involved, they can still sue Walmart, but in smaller numbers or on an individual-basis, which is likely to hamper their efforts.
What do you Lovelies think about the controversy? Do you think the Court should’ve heard the case?
ranunculus / 3457 posts
*kisses Lovelyish for a good post*
guest
This is the kind of class-action lawsuit that it makes sense to have.
Honestly. This is WHY class-action was invented. The court should have heard it. Without knowing the full case, I can’t say how the court should have ruled–but they ought to have at least heard it. They’ve set a dangerous precedent by refusing to hear a class-action discrimination case.
guest
Liberals are killing the Supreme Court. This case should have been 8 – Zip.
Trial lawyers are always after a huge payday at the expense of the consumer.
guest
I agreed with the court’s ruling personally, it’s hard to argue that all of these women were discriminated against based off of a percentage of hourly positions held across many job markets. It makes more sense to me to consider the cases of a group from a single store or even from a city or region.
orchid / 221 posts
Walmart is filled with all kinds of problems.
guest
Dismissing the case doesn’t make it more difficult for employees to successfully file class action lawsuits. Just these employees. And, if the Supreme Court ruled that there wasn’t sufficient evidence to link their sex with their treatment, then no, I don’t think they should have heard the case.
It’s very easy to skew a story about a minority group and make it look like discrimination. A simple fact of few women in management positions and an “insensitive environment” (what does that mean, exactly?) don’t make sex discrimination though. I believe that an employer should promote employees who have the abilities for the job, regardless of gender or membership of a protected group. And special programs for women is sexism, and ridiculous. I know that I don’t want to be held back because of my gender- that is taking away my individual rights by making me merely part of a group. Well, it goes the same way if I’m given special attention and training merely because of my sex. It’s just as insulting and sexist.
And all of the articles I’ve read about this case have wildly different numbers quoted. Just a note.
sunflower / 447 posts
The Supreme court needs to check themselves and listen to their case. What bullshit decision, TBH. I hope they get their case heard – power to women! And shame on Wallmart. Target isn’t too far, bitches!