Bloomberg: Wal-Mart Loses Bid to Block Group Suit in Bias Case

From Bloomberg News:

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world’s largest retailer, lost a bid to prevent as many as 1.6 million current and former female workers from proceeding with a group lawsuit claiming discrimination.

A federal appeals court in San Francisco today upheld a lower court ruling granting class-action status to a lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less than men and giving them fewer promotions. That ruling expanded the suit, originally filed by six women, to include as many as 1.6 million workers, making it the largest employment class action in U.S. history.

“It would be better to handle this case as a class action instead of clogging the federal courts with innumerable individual suits litigating the same issues repeatedly,” the appeals court said, without ruling on the merits of the case itself.

The appeals court’s decision is a blow to Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, which is facing more than 200 federal lawsuits by employees claiming discrimination or failure to pay for all hours worked. The company has lost two wage-and-hour cases since December 2005, with juries in California and Pennsylvania awarding workers $251 million damages.

Wal-Mart has said there is no pay disparity between men and women at most of its stores and it should be allowed to rebut workers’ claims of discrimination individually.

Today’s decision was reached by a panel of three judges, and Wal-Mart can ask for a larger panel to rehear the case or it can appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ramifications

The ruling could have ramifications for other companies. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, siding with Wal-Mart in the case, argued in court papers in 2005 that allowing such a large group of plaintiffs to sue as one would lead to more class-action lawsuits against employers and force unfair settlements.

Class certification helps plaintiffs because it’s cost- effective and provides leverage for a settlement.

The appeals court upheld a June 2004 ruling by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco, who decided that the experiences of the six original plaintiffs may be common to other current and former female workers at Wal-Mart.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, using anecdotal evidence from workers and estimates by experts, claimed that Wal-Mart has shown a pattern of discrimination, paying female hourly workers $1,100 less per year than men and female managers $14,500 less than their male counterparts. They also said Wal-Mart didn’t post job openings and male managers tended to promote men to management positions.

The lawsuit, filed in 2001, has been on hold since September 2004 pending the outcome of Wal-Mart’s appeal of the class certification.

Posted by Russ Fagaly on Tuesday, February 06, 2007

COMMENTS

This is so true at my store last year most of the women if not all got the minimum raise that was allowed. The immediate supervisor said that the women did not do as much as the men. I beg to differ. There are times when I do three jobs in one night. Women have also been made to lift pallets and pull pallets of frieght to the stockroom. I feel that this lawsuit is very much deserved.

Jacqueline Sheffield in Birmingham, Al
Wednesday, February 07 at 09:47 AM

How do you get in touch with the lawyers on this discrimination lawsuit?

D. Tibbets in rogers, ar
Wednesday, February 07 at 09:57 AM

yes i need more info on signing up for this lawsuite

terri in smyrna tn
Wednesday, February 07 at 10:44 AM

Status of litigation in Tennessee and
number of plaintiffs.

J.P. Barfield, Attorney at Law in Nashville, Tn
Wednesday, February 07 at 11:56 AM

Terri in Smyrna- and D. Tibbets in Rogers. AR-
This appears to be the website for signing up on this-

http://www.walmartclass.com/public_home.html

It has a few pages to check out and has phone numbers to the court approved law firms involved-

SanDiegoView in
Wednesday, February 07 at 11:56 AM

THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL APPERS AT-
http://www.walmartclass.com/public_btmf.html

We have recently learned that lawyers NOT associated with this case have been contacting women and offering to represent them in this case. They are offering to assist women in submitting “paperwork” and are sending them retainer agreements to sign in which the class member agrees to pay the law firm for their services. These lawyers do NOT work on the case and have not been approved by the Court to act on behalf of the class.

The only law firms that have worked on this case and have been approved by the court to serve as class counsel are:

o The Impact Fund
o Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C
o Davis, Cowell & Bowe
o Equal Rights Advocates
o Tinkler & Firth
o Merit Bennett, P.C.
· Public Justice Center

The class action covers two kinds of gender discrimination claims arising since 1999: 1) discrimination in pay for any retail store position; and 2) failure to promote into salaried management positions (management trainee and above). Claims for failure to promote into department head positions are not covered.

· Women do not need to have their own lawyer to participate in this case.

· The lawyers listed above are known as “Class Counsel” and will represent your interests in this case. You will not have to pay them directly. If Class Counsel is successful in the class action, they will ask the court to have Wal-Mart pay their fees or award a percentage of the entire class fund.

· At this time, there is NO paperwork to be filled out in this case.

· You have the right to hire your own separate lawyer to represent you in this case but you may be responsible for paying them yourself. If you have claims against Wal-Mart other than discrimination in pay and promotion, you may want to hire your own lawyer to file a separate lawsuit. Those claims cannot be tried as part of the class action.

If you have any questions about this alert or have already signed an agreement with a law firm that is not listed above, you may contact Sarah Varela at 510-845-3473 extension 303.

http://www.walmartclass.com/public_btmf.html

SanDiegoView in
Wednesday, February 07 at 12:04 PM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.