WASHINGTON (AP) — Mounting a large-scale bias claim against a huge company will be more difficult in light of a Supreme Court decision that found no convincing proof of discrimination on which to allow a class action against retail giant Wal-Mart on behalf of as many as 1.6 million women.
All the justices agreed in the decision released
Monday that the case couldn't proceed as a class action in its current form,
reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court also said there were too many
women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.
While individuals could still pursue their own
cases, they would continue with the prospect of costly legal fees and long time
frames and ultimately lack the power that would have accompanied the largest
sex-discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history.
Two of the named plaintiffs, Christine Kwapnoski
and Betty Dukes, vowed to continue their fight, even as they expressed
disappointment about the ruling.
"We still are determined to go forward to
present our case in court. We believe we will prevail there," said Dukes,
a greeter at the Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, Calif.
"All I have to say is when I go back to work
tomorrow, I'm going to let them know we are still fighting," said
Kwapnoski, an assistant manager at a Sam's Club in Concord, Calif. Both women
spoke on a conference call with reporters.
The women's lawyers said they were considering
filing thousands of discrimination claims against Wal-Mart, but they
acknowledged that the court had dealt a fatal blow to their initial plan.
In a statement, Wal-Mart said, "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."
Those with opposing perspectives of the merits of
the case agreed that companies came out ahead with the decision. Companies as
varied as the Wall Street firm Goldman-Sachs & Co., electronics giant
Toshiba America Inc. and Cigna Healthcare Inc. also face class-action claims
from women they employ.
"This is an extremely important victory not
just for Wal-Mart, but for all companies that do business in the United
States," said Theodore Boutrous Jr., Wal-Mart's lawyer. The U.S. Chamber
of Commerce said the court had set a high bar in ruling that "mega-class
actions such as this one are completely inconsistent with federal law."
Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National
Women's Law Center, said, "The court has told employers that they can rest
easy, knowing that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their
employees will be able to join together to secure their rights."
In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia
wrote, "Because respondents provide no convincing proof of a companywide
discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that they have not
established the existence of any common question."
With 2.1 million workers in more than 8,000 stores
worldwide, Wal-Mart could have faced billions of dollars in damages if it had
had to answer claims by the huge group of women.
The high court's majority agreed with Wal-Mart's
argument that being forced to defend the treatment of female employees
regardless of the jobs they hold or where they work is unfair.
Scalia said there needed to be common elements
tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at once."
He said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer,
"that is entirely absent here."
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the
court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough to unite the
claims.
"Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay
and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.
The other women on the court, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, and
Justice Stephen Breyer joined Ginsburg's opinion.
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other
congressional Democrats criticized the ruling and called on Congress to pass
the Paycheck Fairness Act to reduce wage disparities between men and women.
"Today's ruling underscores the need to act
boldly and strongly on behalf of women's rights," Pelosi said.
Business interests, including nearly two dozen
large companies, lined up with Wal-Mart, while civil rights, women's and
consumer groups sided with the women plaintiffs.
Both sides painted the case as extremely
consequential. The business community said that a ruling for the women would
lead to a flood of class-action lawsuits based on vague evidence. Supporters of
the women suggested a decision in favor of Wal-Mart could remove a valuable
weapon for fighting all sorts of discrimination.
Said Greenberger: "The women of Wal-Mart, together
with women everywhere, will now face a far steeper road to challenge and
correct pay and other forms of discrimination in the workplace."
The Wal-Mart lawsuit, citing what are now dated
figures from 2001, said that women are grossly underrepresented among managers,
holding just 14 percent of store manager positions compared with more than 80
percent of lower-ranking supervisory jobs that are paid by the hour. Wal-Mart
responded that women in its retail stores made up two-thirds of all employees
and two-thirds of all managers in 2001.
The company also has said its policies prohibit
discrimination and that it has taken steps since the suit was filed to address
problems, including posting job openings electronically.
Associated Press writer Anne D'Innocenzio in New
York contributed to this report.
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press.
(AP
Photo/Paul Sakuma)
