Today, more than 48 years after the Equal Pay Act was passed, and as we urge action in support of the Paycheck Fairness Act, women's ability to band together to demand fair pay has been dealt a blow. The Supreme Court ruled this morning, 5-4 that a nationwide class action lawsuit challenging sex discrimination in pay and promotions at Wal-Mart cannot go forward.
A group of female employees sued Wal-Mart, the nation's largest private employer, claiming the company paid them lower wages and gave them fewer promotions than men -- even when they had higher performance ratings and more seniority than their male counterparts. Now, ten years after filing their lawsuit, the Supreme Court has said that they will not get their day in court -- at least not as a nationwide class. In ruling so, the court discounted evidence -- emphasized in Justice Ginsburg's partial dissent -- that women were paid less than men in every Wal-Mart region and were subjected to gender bias in the company's culture.
The implications of this decision are major:
In their lawsuit, the women of Wal-Mart allege that they, like many working women, were subjected to limitations at work based on stereotypes about what constituted appropriate work for women (working as a cashier or in the cosmetics department) and what constituted appropriate work for men (working in the sporting goods department and managerial positions), with resulting wage discrepancies.
Not being able to move forward with this case as a nationwide class action is a major defeat. Requiring retail workers like Betty Dukes and each of her co-plaintiffs to file their own individual lawsuits demands that they face a truly David vs. Goliath uphill battle. In many cases "David" faces a real possibility of being squashed by the giant corporate "Goliath." Companies like Wal-Mart are so big, with so many employees in different locations, that it is nearly impossible for any one employee to learn of and compile the vast evidence necessary to prove her case or to make an impact and bring about major institutional reform through an individual lawsuit.
Furthermore, the women of Wal-Mart, like those employed by other giant corporations, work primarily in low-paying retail jobs. Most women with low-paying jobs cannot afford to hire attorneys to take their individual cases. As a result of this split decision, it will be much more difficult for such women to bring their claims jointly as a class action to challenge systemic discrimination. Instead, they will be forced to litigate their claims individually, or in smaller classes -- and many will not have the resources to do so. The court's decision is therefore a major setback for women seeking to challenge sex discrimination by their corporate employers. We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not recognize this difficulty and allow the women of Wal-Mart to have their day in court as a class. While the Court has made it much more difficult for women to band together in nationwide class actions to challenge systemic pay discrimination, Congress must act now to ensure that women can receive equal pay for equal work in the first place by passing the Paycheck Fairness Act.
Joanne Bamberger: Supreme Court Tells Women to Shut Up and Go Home -- Again
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: It's Time For Congress To Act On The Paycheck Fairness Act
Helgi C. Walker: Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Supreme Court Is Pro Rule Of Law
If individual suits are what's needed, but the data and the case is effectively the same one, then proceed with thousands of cases and deluge the courts with this. The individual district courts will combine them, as they sometimes do with criminal proceedings and otherwise - there IS precedent for this! - and it will have the same effect. The lawyers will simply ask each "member of the class" to send in their $100 or whatever and agree that the lawyers get their proper compensation from the proceeds of any damage awards. THEY CAN MAKE IT FAIR, too! Simply follow the model of an actual class action suit!
THAT will poke the SCOTUS with a sharp stick in the eye - DO IT ANYWAY.
The fact that you wrote this sentence means that you have absolutely no understanding of the Supreme Court's decision. Your knee-jerk reaction to this case is more misguided than Fox News covering an Obama speech.
The women do not need to file "individual lawsuits" against WalMart. They need to band together PER STORE. The case alleged that 1.5 million women were in the class against all 3400 WalMart stores. There isn't anything in common between a woman who left the company 10 years ago in store #264 and a woman currently employed in store #3122. As the court said, the only thing they have in common is "being a woman and this lawsuit."
What the women can do is, for example, become a class of "woman in store #2733." Doing the math, the average number of women per store is just under 500. That's a decent class, and it sure is more reasonable than your misguided belief that all women must file an "individual lawsuit."
Next time you blog about a Supreme Court decision, do yourself a favor and read/understand it first.
Simple solution. Women who have felt discriminated against by Walmart - quit. Women who don't like Walmart - don't apply to work there. If you think Walmart doesn't appreciate women - don't shop there.
In this country, employers get to choose their employees and employees get to decide whether to stay or not to stay. Let's keep personal responsibility in the equation, and lawsuits like this out of the courts (unless true damage has been done).
Thanks. I like the freedom of being able to fan anyone I want - even a liberal.