Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Nos. 04-16688 & 04-16720 (9th Cir. filed February 14, 2005) ; Clearinghouse Number: 53854

Description

Wal-Mart Challenges Class Certification in Discrimination Suit by Female Employees

Abstract

Six current and former Wal-Mart employees, on behalf of a class of over 700,000, charge Wal-Mart with a pattern and practice of denying women promotion and equal pay in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart’s workforce is predominantly female but that very few women hold significant managerial positions. Plaintiffs also allege that women are assigned to positions that pay less and hold fewer advancement opportunities than positions to which men are assigned. The district court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class of all women who have been employed at domestic Wal-Mart stores since December 26, 1998, and who have been or may be subject to the challenged pay and promotion practices, but on grounds of unmanageability the court limited lost-pay and punitive damage awards to those class members who can produce objective evidence of interest in promotion. Wal-Mart sought interlocutory review by the Ninth Circuit of the class certification order. Defendant claims that the district court altered substantive law, in violation of the Rules Enabling Act, by improperly applying Rule 23(a)’s commonality and typicality requirements and in finding that injunctive relief was the litigation’s primary goal, and that the district court violated Title VII and defendant’s due process rights by denying “stage II” individualized hearings in a pattern and practice case. Plaintiffs argue inter alia that the errors that defendant alleges do not meet the standard for interlocutory review; subjective decision making may be challenged in a pattern-and-practice case; statistical methods are appropriate for determining relief at stage II; back pay is properly considered injunctive relief under Title VII; and a Rule 23(b)(2) class may seek punitive damages. Plaintiffs are cross-appealing the district court’s limit on back-pay awards.

Additional Information

Attorney Information
Plaintiffs/Appellees/Cross-Appellants represented by Brad Seligman, Jocelyn Larkin, The Impact Fund, 125 Univesity Ave., Berkeley, CA 94710 (telephone number: 510.845.3473); Irma Herrera, Debra Smith, Equal Rights Advocates, 1663 Mission St., Suite 250, San Francisco, CA 94103 (telephone number: 415.621.0672); Debra Gardner, Public Justice Center, 500 E. Lexington St., Baltimore, MD 21202 (telephone number: 410.625.9409).
Docket Date
2005-02-14 00:00:00+00:00