Supreme Court appears poised to reject class action in Wal-Mart sex-bias case

[xchrom]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-walmart-20110330,0,173597.story

Supreme Court justices, sharply divided along gender lines, appeared poised to reject a nationwide class-action suit that accuses Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of sex discrimination.

Led by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, the majority of men on the court questioned how Wal-Mart could be held liable for illegal sex bias when its 3,400 store managers across the nation decide who gets promoted and who receives pay raises.

"It's not clear to me: What's the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted?" Kennedy asked. The company's written policy calls for equal treatment without regard to race or sex.

But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan — who together mark the first time the court has had three women on the bench — asserted that a corporate policy of letting store managers decide on promotions could result in discrimination against women.

[joeybee12]

1. Kicking...nice to know we have assholes on the SCOTUS...

Although we already knew that.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Why would this surprise anybody after the Citizens United ruling. I worked at

WM's headquarters in Bentonville (not as an employee) and know that there was/is a corporate climate of 'good ole boys' there.

[CanonRay]

3. Big surprise. Scalia already said women have no rights

at the 14th amendment doesn't apply to them. I used to think highly of the court, who I always believed approached cases with open minds. No longer.

[Lance_Boyle]

4. 'could result in?' Is that the best they can come up with?

It is equally valid to say that a corporate policy of allowing store managers to decide on promotions could result in discrimination against men, or Asians, or short people. It seems to me that any discrimination claim arising from this corporate policy would be at the store level - a much smaller class, but a much stronger case (where it can be proven). The corporate policy doesn't discriminate. If individual managers do, that's where the suit should be targeted.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. I think a big question is who, besides store managers, should decide on promotions?

It sounds to me like Walmart's corporate manager training and policy unmistakably call for equal treatment. There is a big disconnect between the determination of discriminatino ocurring and whose actions are to blame (if discrimination is determined to have ocured). If store managers should not be trusted with promotions, then who should handle promotions? Regional managers or company executives?

Perhaps there is another more culpable target for this discrimination lawsuit... ?

[joeybee12]

10. Do they give guidelines? Is it just a stated policy without guidelines

and guidance? If so, it's essentially worthless.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

11. Yeah, but if Walmart Corporate did not have knowlege or influence in discrimination...

and their policy goes so far as to mandate equal treatment, then perhaps these cases are better heard at more local level aimed at more discrete local and regional chains. I'm not saying disimination never happened... I'm just saying pinning on Walmart Corporate as the defendant might be a little broad brush. A better (safer) strategy would be to keep cases more localized - such as several smaller class-action suits instead of one big one.

[BlueIris]

6. Gross.

Sexism is so last century.

[amborin]

7. K&R

[fishwax]

8. well, it doesn't seem "sharply divided along gender lines," but rather along ideological lines

with Kennedy as the swing vote. Nobody expects Thomas, Alito, Scalia, or Roberts to give a damn about issues that affect women.

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Not surprised in the least. That's the same SCOTUS that appointed a president which

started this downward spiral in our country. I never expected them to protect the rights of women, of all people.

[Bunny]

12. As if a company would NEVER, EVER, violate its own written policies.

No sir, THAT never happens. :eyes: Seriously, Kennedy. Did you really ask that?

Isn't Walmart, the corporation, required to track applications for all positions, with regard to gender, race, and other protected classes as part of EEOC complaince? And if so, wouldn't Walmart expect their local/regional managers to provide them with this data periodically? And wouldn't Walmart then want to examine that data and see what percentage of their promotions are awarded to protected classes? Don't you think it would be a big red flag if there were an unusually small percentage of these promtions going to women or other protected classes? It seems to me that a company would want to monitor that kind of information, if only to protect themselves from lawsuits. But then, we're talking about Walmart here. They don't seem to show much concern for following rules.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

13. I'm confused -- the SC seems to be getting ahead of itself

They appear to be deciding the merits of the sex-discrimination case, which as far as I am aware hasn't even been heard at the trial court level yet. I thought the only issue before them right now was whether the employees could maintain a class-action suit or whether they would have to litigate individually.