Class actions

  • March 31, 2011
    Video Interview

    Following a recent ACS event on Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the class action employment discrimination before the Supreme Court, law professor Suzette Malveaux talked with ACSblog about the stakes involved in the case.

    “What makes Wal-Mart such a big case, an important case is not so much its size, but really the impact it might have on other types of class actions, and in particular employment discrimination class actions,” Malveaux, an associate professor of law at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, said.  

    Malveaux, author of a new article in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, the official journal of ACS, said an adverse ruling against the Wal-Mart plaintiffs could create significant hurdles for others in bringing class action litigation against big businesses.

    Malveaux said her article “addresses one of the primary questions before the Supreme Court, and that’s whether or not the plaintiffs in this case could get monetary relief for the discrimination that they suffered; they are challenging systemic, company-wide policy, but they are also seeking monetary relief.”

    She continued, “And the Court is going to be looking at whether that is appropriate. And that is important because employees will often seek monetary relief as well trying to get the systemic discrimination policy to end, they also want to get back pay, they want to get monetary relief for the discrimination. So the Court is going to be looking at what’s he proper standard for allowing the case to go forward as a class action. And there’s a real risk that that standard might go up. And if that standard goes up, it is going to make it much more difficult for employees and consumers and many people with small claims and few resources to collectively come together and challenge systemic discrimination.”

    Watch the professor’s interview below or download the podcast of it here.

  • March 30, 2011

    The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the gender discrimination case that could decide the future of class actions, and the justices appeared to divide largely along gender lines, suggesting a possible win for Wal-Mart, Bloomberg reports.

    Although the issue on appeal centered around the nature of the class action, “the disagreement among the justices focused as much on the substance of the federal job-discrimination laws as on the requirements for class actions,” according to Bloomberg.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned the nature of the alleged unlawful policy, saying, “Your complaint faces in two directions. You said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that's going on. Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion. It seems to me there's an inconsistency there …”

  • March 29, 2011
    Guest Post

    A gender discrimination case before the Supreme Court today that will decide whether women employees and former employees of Wal-Mart can proceed with a class action lawsuit against the company is among the "most important" discrimination cases, testing whether the force and intent of discrimination laws will be protected, said Marcia Greenberger, founder and co-president of the National Women's Law Center, during an ACS panel discussion about Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

    "Through the most technical and dense-sounding legal issues, this court will ultimately decide whether employees in this country, women in this country, minorities, others, older workers, disabled workers, will be able to hold employers accountable, or whether it will be left to an individual to uphold and protect her rights against the biggest employer in this country and have to find the resources on her own to combat the kind of litigation," Greenberger said.

    "It's the class action mechanism that allows employees to be able to bring these issues to the fore and to enable justice to be served and ultimately fairness to be meted out," she added.

    The procedural issues in the case include whether the class is properly before the court seeking injunctive relief when they are also seeking monetary damages as part of their claim, explained McGuireWoods lawyer Andrew Trask, who suggested the case was brought under the wrong provision, Rule 23(b)(2), and should have instead been brought under Rule 23(b)(3), which imposes a more onerous burden on the plaintiffs.

    But Suzette Malveaux, an associate professor of law at Columbus School of Law, Catholic University, explained that Rule 23(b)(2) is silent as to whether or not monetary damages may be sought, and that the rule's drafters intended to allow plaintiffs to seek monetary relief, so long as that relief did not overshadow any injunctive relief sought.

  • March 29, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Emily J. Martin, Vice President and General Counsel, National Women's Law Center.

    The Supreme Court heard oral argument today in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the case that will decide whether the hundreds of thousands of women employed at Wal-Mart stores around the country will be able to come together to challenge companywide policies leading to discriminatory pay and promotion decisions. The Court's decision will not only determine whether the women of Wal-Mart will be able to move forward with their claims; it may also determine whether class actions will continue to be viable for individuals across the country experiencing discrimination on the job.

    Why does this matter? Because women (and men) facing discrimination at work-and in particular pay discrimination-face significant obstacles to challenging that discrimination, as the National Women's Law Center set out in its friend-of-the-court brief in support of the women of Wal-Mart. Class actions help overcome these systemic obstacles.

    First, if women don't know how much men in their company are making, they won't know if they are making less. Evidence in this case indicates Wal-Mart had a pay secrecy policy, so if women found out about coworkers' salaries, it was by word-of-mouth or sheer accident. And this is not unusual. Employees typically have little or no information about their co-workers' wages and salaries. Indeed, many employers maintain rules explicitly barring discussion of pay within the workplace. In a recent survey by the Institute for Women's Policy Research, 50 percent of respondents, and 61 percent of private sector employees, reported that discussing pay was prohibited or discouraged in their workplace. And late last year, a minority of senators successfully blocked passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have prohibited employers from punishing employees who talk about their compensation. As a result, pay is hidden under a veil of secrecy, making pay discrimination difficult for individuals to detect. Class actions help lift this veil by subjecting an employer's discriminatory pay practices to judicial scrutiny regardless of whether each employee in the class has independently been able to gather the information to determine she has suffered pay discrimination.

  • March 28, 2011
    Guest Post

    By Sarah Crawford, Director of Workplace Fairness, National Partnership for Women & Families

    Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Wal-Mart v. Dukes - the high profile class action case involving 1.6 million women who have worked at Wal-Mart. The Court is poised to decide whether or not the women can proceed as a class to challenge the systemic discriminatory pay and promotion practices of the country's largest employer. More than a decade after the women first filed their lawsuit, the Court's decision will determine if the women will finally get the chance to present the merits of their claims in court.

    During ten years of litigation, the class has amassed an impressive body of evidence. Statistical evidence shows that women were receiving significantly less pay and fewer promotions than their male counterparts - despite better performance reviews, greater seniority and fewer disciplinary issues. Anecdotal evidence demonstrates a corporate culture of gender stereotypes and a lack of objective standards for making personnel decisions.

    Before the class can get to the merits of their claims of discrimination, however, they must first convince the Supreme Court that the lower courts properly certified the class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court has taken up the question of whether the class of women satisfy Rule 23(a)'s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality and adequacy, as well as Rule 23(b)(2)'s requirement that "the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole."