ILNews

SCOTUS rules on Wal-Mart class-certification case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

With a ruling from the nation’s highest court, an Indianapolis federal judge and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals learned they were correct in how they decided a sex-bias suit involving Rolls Royce.

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision Monday in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, et al., No. 10-277, reversing a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that allowed as many as 1.6 million female employees to join together in what would be the nation’s largest class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs alleged Wal-Mart's habit of giving managers discretion to make pay and promotion decisions was a discriminatory policy that resulted in men earning more money than their female counterparts and holding a disproportionate number of leadership positions.

Specifically at issue in the nationwide class-action suit was whether claims of monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(b)(2), which is designed for cases primarily seeking injunctive or declaratory relief and offers slightly more relaxed requirements in proving class status than what’s required in monetary relief requests.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority that the class was not properly certified under Rule 23(b)(2), and that the plaintiffs should have used Rule 23(b)(3) for its requests for monetary relief. The court held that claims for monetary relief can’t be certified under Rule 23(b)(2), at least where the money requested is not incidental to the requested injunctive or declaratory relief, but justices stopped short of creating any blanket answer about whether that could ever happen.

“Respondents nonetheless argue that their back pay claims were appropriately certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because those claims do not ‘predominate’ over their injunctive and declaratory relief requests,” the syllabus states. “That interpretation has no basis in the Rule’s text and does obvious violence to the Rule’s structural features.”

If the court had agreed with the female employees’ arguments, it wrote that District courts would have to continuously re-evaluate class membership rosters to excise those who leave their employment and become ineligible for relief from the class-action suit.

That issue ties in with a case from Indianapolis that Judge Sarah Evans Barker had decided, Sally A. Randall, et al. v. Rolls-Royce Corp., No. 10-3446, and the 7th Circuit affirmed earlier this year. Both courts addressed a similar issue raised in Wal-Mart, and this national ruling upholds what the outcome was in Rolls-Royce and sets the stage for future class-action lawsuits involving both monetary and injunctive relief.

“Respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once,” Justice Scalia wrote. “Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.”

But the four more liberal members of the court wrote they’d give more weight to the plaintiffs' evidence of widespread discrimination, which included a statistical analysis of Wal-Mart's employee ranks as well as the experiences of female workers who testified to a culture of discrimination.

In a partial dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the plaintiffs had met their burden of alleging a question common to the proposed class, namely whether Wal-Mart’s discretionary pay and promotion policies are discriminatory.

“Managers, like all humankind, may be prey to biases of which they are unaware,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “The risk of discrimination is heightened when those managers are predominantly of one sex, and are steeped in a corporate culture that perpetuates gender stereotypes.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT