Walmart takes discrimination case to top court
Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article air yeezy Walmart, the US discount retailer, is to defend itself at the Supreme Court in the world’s largest sex discrimination case, which has the potential to transform the future course of legal disputes between big business and workers in the US. In a class-action lawsuit that has taken a decade to reach the court, the retailer is accused of paying women in the US less than men for the same work and of passing them over for promotions. Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - The court on Tuesday will hear arguments on whether the case can go forward as a class-action lawsuit, in which a small number of women want to represent a larger group of current and former employees estimated to number up to 1.5m. The Supreme Court will rule on Walmart’s claim that the class action is too broadly constituted to be meaningful rather than on the merits of the case. Lawyers for the plaintiffs say that a victory for them on this technical point would help to give US workers better legal protection against discrimination. Walmart and its allies say that if it loses, corporate America will be hobbled by a wave of new class-action lawsuits. Walmart’s opponents say the experiences of the plaintiffs, led by a 61-year-old store “greeter” named Betty Dukes who still works for the company in California, reflect a wider culture of discrimination. Walmart, the world’s biggest company by sales, tends to attract admiration and scorn in equal measure. The case is a stark example of how its size has thrust it into the centre of highly politicised disputes in the US and beyond. Following 30 minutes of arguments from both sides on Tuesday, the Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by July. David Tovar, a Walmart spokesman, said Ms Dukes and her fellow plaintiffs could not be representative of more than a million women and stressed that Walmart has had anti-discrimination policies in place for many years. “We think there are thousands of women who have had tremendously positive experiences working at Walmart,” he said. Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said: “Walmart has repeatedly argued that this case is too big to be adjudicated properly. I worry that they are seeking a standard that would make companies too big to be accountable.” His team has supplemented the evidence of the original six plaintiffs with testimony from other Walmart employees and statistical analysis that it says shows women are not paid as well or promoted as often as men. Walmart says the extra evidence is flawed. Several big companies have rallied to Walmart’s side, including Intel and Microsoft, the technology groups, and Altria, the tobacco company. In a legal brief filed in support of Walmart, the US Chamber of Commerce said last year that if the case is allowed to go ahead, it would “likely provoke an avalanche of new class-action litigation” that would engulf all companies in the US. “Anyone with a claim that is ‘reasonably coextensive’ with those of other potential plaintiffs – be it a personal-injury, consumer-fraud, or medical-monitoring claim – would now have a viable class action,” it said. Walmart’s opponents reject the suggestion that a defeat for the retailer would dramatically shift the balance of power between big business and potential litigants. Instead, they say, it is a Walmart victory that would upend established legal tradition. Marcia Greenberger, who is supporting the plaintiffs as co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said: “If the plaintiffs did not prevail and the court adopted a new principle, it could end up shielding discrimination and allowing it remain unchecked and unremedied.” .Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2011. You may share using our article tools. Please don't cut articles from FT.com and redistribute by email or post to the web.