Wal-Mart Class Action Case
In June, 2011, the Supreme Court came up with a ruling that would restrict the ability of employees to band together and bring a class action against their employers on basis of discrimination. This is a landmark ruling that would affect the nature and ruling of future class actions brought before judges. The ruling delivered on June, 2011 threw out a class action against the Wal-Mart company that had been presented by 1.5 million employees. The plaintiffs stated that the company’s policies and practices promoted discrimination against women when it came to pay and promotions.
The judges threw out the case where voting was 5 to 4 against the class action. In throwing out the class action the judges had did not state the company was not liable for female discrimination. The judges only stated that the women could not group together and sue the company collectively. The business groups in the country welcomed the ruling which is understandable considering the high amounts paid out in damages when it came to class law suits.
The labour and consumer groups criticized the decision made by the court. The judges in the majority explained that it had been noted that the company had an expressed policy in the organization that forbade discrimination. The plaintiffs were required to prove that the company had a policy that favoured female discrimination. Wal-Mart is the largest private employer operating a total of 3,400 stores. Judge Scalia, one of the judges against the class action explained that the fact that the company gave the local managers in the stores substantial discretion in their work showed that the company did not apply uniform
employment practices. This fact denied the women the ability to join in a class action.
Gathering statistical information on the company human resources data that the female employees were paid less and got fewer promotions would not be sufficient. The judges explained that the data did not prove that gender bias or discrimination was the only reason for the disparities. It did not provide a source of common issues among the women plaintiffs. Specific managers could argue that they had less women employed in their stores due to lack of available qualified women in the market interested in working in their stores.
The women plaintiffs had secured the services of William T. Bielby, who was a socialist. He had argued that the company had a centralized policy of allowing subjective decisions by managers that would promote disparities. The local managers would be affected by stereotypical behaviour and personal bias that would promote gender bias. The judges however refused the argument stating that it did not prove that the company operated under a general policy of discrimination (Liptak, 2011).
The judges in the minority also expressed their views on the matter. Justice Ginsburg, one of the four judges, explained that the statistics of female employment provided in the court showed that there was gender bias that permeated Wal-Mart culture. The statistics showed that the women in the country had 70% of the hourly jobs while they filled only 33% of the management positions in the organization.
She stated that the choice to delegate to supervisors high discretion capabilities to make personnel decisions provided an environment with potential for disparate decisions. The lack of formal standards was dangerous. She noted that all men were vulnerable to certain bias and stereotypical behaviour that they may not be aware of.
References
Liptak, A. (2011). Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Class-Action Bias Case. Retrieved from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21bizcourt.html?pagewanted=all
