was there a settlement for dukes v wal-mart stores inc

What was the case of Dukes v Walmart?

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Case: Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was originally filed in 2001 on behalf of a class of an estimated 1.5 million women affected by Wal-Mart’s discriminatory employment practices, making it one of the largest civil rights class action lawsuits in history.

What is the Wal-Mart lawsuit?

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was originally filed in 2001 on behalf of a class of an estimated 1.5 million women affected by Wal-Mart’s discriminatory employment practices, making it one of the largest civil rights class action lawsuits in history. The women assert that pay and promotion policies at Wal-Mart systematically disadvantage female employees.

Is Walmart trying to dismantle the Supreme Court's employment discrimination jurisprudence?

Plaintiffs' counsel argued that "Wal-Mart is attempting to dismantle the Supreme Court's employment discrimination class action jurisprudence [that] would require the Court to overrule 45 years of civil rights and class action precedent." On December 6, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Walmart's appeal as Wal-Mart v.

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Walmart v California case?

On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart's favor by saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class. The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability of plaintiffs' circumstances, the class action could not proceed as comprised.

Which author wrote the majority opinion of the court in Betty Dukes vs Wal-Mart?

ScaliaWal-Mart v. DukesDocket No.Op. BelowAuthor10-2779th Cir.ScaliaJun 20, 2011

Does Walmart have an affirmative action plan?

Wal-mart has a bare-bones policy telling managers how to dole out pro- motions. eligible workers need only meet three basic criteria: 1) an above- average performance rating, 2) at least one year of job tenure, and 3) a willing- ness to relocate.

What happened in the Dukes v Walmart Supreme Court case do you agree with the court's decision explain?

Supreme Court decision On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart's favor by saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class. The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability of plaintiffs' circumstances, the class action could not proceed as comprised.

What is Walmart doing for diversity?

Racial Equity Shared Value Networks In mid-2020, Walmart established four Shared Value Networks (SVNs) to help advance racial equity in the U.S. criminal justice, education, finance, and health systems, with a particular focus on disparities affecting Black and African American people.

What is Walmart's competitive strategy?

Wal-Mart's competitive strategy is to dominate every sector where it does business. It measures success in terms of sales and dominance over competitors. Its strategy is to sell goods at low process, outsell competitors, and to expand. Generally, Wal-Mart does everything it can to win over competitors.

What is Walmart's policy?

Walmart's standard return policy generally gives you three months to bring an item back. Here's what it says on the store's website. "You have 90 days after purchase to exchange or return, unless noted in our exceptions. You can return items in-store, for free by mail, or via a scheduled pickup from your home."

Is Walmart allowed to check receipts?

What Walmart is saying: A Walmart spokesperson told us that "our intent is to check every receipt." He said, ultimately, this policy is to help prevent theft, which helps keep inventory high and prices low thus keeping customers happy.

What is the Walmart return policy?

Walmart's return policy Our easy returns allow you to conveniently return items for free by mail, a scheduled pickup from your home, or in-store. Normally, items purchased in our stores or on Walmart.com may be returned or exchanged within ninety (90) days of purchase with or without a receipt.

What was the Supreme Court case in Wal-Mart v. Dukes?

Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart.

When did Walmart vs Dukes happen?

On December 6, 2009, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Walmart's appeal as Wal-Mart v. Dukes. Oral argument for the case occurred on March 29, 2011. On June 20, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled in Walmart's favor by saying the plaintiffs did not have enough in common to constitute a class. The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability ...

How old was Betty Dukes in 2000?

In 2000, Betty Dukes, a 54-year-old Walmart worker in California, claimed sex discrimination. Despite six years of work and positive performance reviews, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher salaried position.

When did Walmart rehearse en banc?

On February 13, 2009, the Ninth Circuit granted Walmart's petition for rehearing en banc on the class action certification. As a result, the December 2007 Ninth Circuit opinion was no longer effective.

Where did the Walmart lawsuit start?

In June 2001, the lawsuit began in US District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs sought to represent 1.6 million women, including women who were currently working or who had previously worked in a Walmart store since December 26, 1998.

Who was the judge for the en banc appeal?

On April 26, 2010, the en banc court affirmed the district court's class certification on a 6-5 vote, with Judge Michael Daly Hawkins writing for the majority and Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta writing for the dissent.

Who is the lead counsel in Walmart?

Walmart's lead appellate counsel, Theodore Boutrous, Jr., said in a statement that the decision violates "both due process and federal class action rules, contradicting numerous decisions of other federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court itself" and indicated that Walmart would appeal to the Supreme Court.

When was the Wal Mart case certified as a class action?

A federal district court certified the lawsuit as a class action in 2004. The case was then heard by both a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit in 2007, and a second group of eleven Ninth Circuit judges in April 2009. Both courts supported the district court’s decision to certify the class. Wal-Mart then asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case, which it agreed to do in December 2010.

What is the largest class action lawsuit in history?

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., was originally filed in 2001 on behalf of a class of an estimated 1.5 million women affected by Wal-Mart’s discriminatory employment practices, making it one of the largest civil rights class action lawsuits in history. The women assert that pay and promotion policies at Wal-Mart systematically disadvantage female employees.

Did Wal-Mart certify the class?

Both courts supported the district court’s decision to certify the class. Wal-Mart then asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case, which it agreed to do in December 2010.

How many stores did the plaintiffs work at in the California case?

Of the other four, one was terminated, 2 and three left Wal-Mart before the complaint was even filed. 3 In the aggregate, these six plaintiffs worked at ten stores in California, one store in Texas, one store in Oklahoma, and one store in Missouri.

Which circuit is Blades v. New Motor Vehicles?

New Motor Vehicles is on firmer ground describing the Eighth Circuit's decision in Blades, though we find the language in that case more nuanced than New Motor Vehicles describes, and we disagree that Blades “suggests substantial differences” from other circuits. New Motor Vehicles, 522 F.3d at 24. The Blades court cited Falcon in describing the standard as follows:

What rule does a district court apply when deciding whether to certify a class?

Like our decision today, and in part because of courts' misunderstanding of Eisen, many of our sister circuits have recently been called upon to clarify the standard that a district court applies when deciding whether to certify a class under Rule 23.

What is the burden of a party seeking certification?

The party seeking certification bears the burden of showing that each of the four requirements of Rule 23 (a) and at least one requirement of Rule 23 (b) have been met. Zinser v. Accufix Research In st., Inc., 253 F.3d 1180, 1186 (9th Cir.), amended by 273 F.3d 1266 (9th Cir.2001).

What is Rule 23 in class action?

Rule 23 “provides district courts with broad discretion to determine whether a class should be certified, and to revisit that certification throughout the legal proceedings before the court .” Armstrong, 275 F.3d at 871 n. 28. If evidence not available at the time of certification disproves Plaintiffs' contentions that common issues predominate, the district court has the authority to modify or even decertify the class, Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147, 160, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (“Even after a certification order is entered, the judge remains free to modify it in the light of subsequent developments in the litigation.”), or use a variety of management devices to address the individualized issues that have arisen, see 2 Alba Conte & Herbert B. Newberg, Newberg on Class Actions § 4.26 (4th ed.2002). 4

Is class issue separate from merits?

Nor is the class issue separable from the merits in all cases (including this one). The common questions, typicality, conflicts and adequacy of representation, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (a), and predominance tests, Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (b) (3), are determinations ․ which may require review of the same facts and the same law presented by review of the merits.

Is a district court inquiry permissible?

Since we first addressed the issue in the wake of the Eisen and Falcon decisions, our cases have made clear that a district court inquiry overlapping with the merits is permissible, and often required, under Rule 23. See Moore v. Hughes Helicopters, Inc., 708 F.2d 475, 480 (9th Cir.1983) ( “Although some inquiry into the substance of a case may be necessary to ascertain satisfaction of the commonality and typicality requirements of Rule 23 (a), it is improper to advance a decision on the merits to the certification stage.” (citation omitted)). Later, we said that a district court is “at liberty to consider evidence which goes to the requirements of Rule 23 even though the evidence may also relate to the underlying merits of the case.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497, 509 (9th Cir.1992) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 954 (9th Cir.2003) (“The court may not go so far, of course, as to judge the validity of [the merits] claims․ But the breadth and consistency of class counsel's initial evidence places the district court's finding of commonality well within that court's discretion.” (citation omitted)). We have also specifically cited Eisen in rejecting a party's argument that Eisen prohibits any inquiry overlapping with the merits and explaining that such an overlapping inquiry is sometimes necessary under Rule 23. See Blackie, 524 F.2d at 897 (“Nor is the class issue separable from the merits in all cases (including this one). The common questions, typicality, conflicts and adequacy of representation, and predominance tests, are determinations ․ which may require review of the same facts and the same law presented by review of the merits.” (citations omitted)). 7

How many women were in the Wal Mart class action lawsuit?

Ruling that the proposed class satisfied the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, a California federal court certified a class that was believed to contain 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart after December 26, 1998 at facilities around the nation. This was the largest class action lawsuit in U.S.history.

How many plaintiffs are there in the Wal Mart class action?

The District Court and the Court of Appeals approved the certification of a class comprising about one and a half million plaintiffs, current and former female employees of petitioner Wal-Mart who allege that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violates Title VII by discriminat-ing against women. In addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs seek an award of backpay. We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 (a) and (b) (2).

What is a Title VII class action?

Title VII claims are based on the reason for a certain employment decision , but this class action is based on millions of employment decisions. To show commonality, the plaintiffs would need to prove that the defendant had engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination.

What is class action law?

The class action is “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U. S. 682, 700–701 (1979). In order to justify a departure from that rule, “a class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U. S. 395, 403 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208, 216 (1974)). Rule 23 (a) ensures that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to litigate. The Rule’s four requirements—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation—“effectively ‘limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff ’s claims.’ ” General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, 457 U. S. 147, 156 (1982) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC, 446 U. S. 318, 330 (1980)).

Where did Betty Dukes work?

Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburgh, California, Wal-Mart in 1994. She started as a cashier, but later sought and received a promotion to customer service manager. After a series of disciplinary violations, however, Dukes was demoted back to cashier and then to greeter. Dukes concedes she violated company policy, but contends that the disciplinary actions were in fact retaliation for invoking internal complaint procedures and that male employees have not been disciplined for similar infractions. Dukes also claims two male greeters in the Pittsburgh store are paid more than she is.

Is Wal Mart discriminatory against women?

Importantly for our purposes, respondents claim that the discrimination to which they have been subjected is common to all Wal-Mart’s female employees. The basic theory of their case is that a strong and uniform “corporate culture” permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of Wal-Mart’s thousands of managers—thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice. Respondents therefore wish to litigate the Title VII claims of all female employees at Wal-Mart’s stores in a nationwide class action.

Who conducted the statistical evidence for the Wal-Mart?

The statistical evidence consists primarily of regression analyses performed by Dr. Richard Drogin, a statistician, and Dr. Marc Bendick, a labor economist. Drogin conducted his analysis region-by-region, comparing the number of women promoted into management positions with the percentage of women in the available pool of hourly workers. After considering regional and national data, Drogin concluded that “there are statistically significant disparities between men and women at Wal-Mart . . . [and] these disparities … can be explained only by gender discrimination.” 603 F. 3d, at 604 (internal quotation marks omitted). Bendick compared work-force data from Wal-Mart and competitive retailers and concluded that Wal-Mart “promotes a lower percentage of women than its competitors.” Ibid.

What is the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart?

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart alleging sexual discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The district court certified the class with minor modifications to Plaintiffs' proposed class. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (e). For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the district court, concluding that it did not abuse its discretion when it certified the class.

What are the four categories of evidence in the case of Wal-Mart?

Plaintiffs presented four categories of evidence: (1) facts supporting the existence of company-wide policies and practices ; (2) expert opinions supporting the existence of company-wide policies and practices; and (3) expert statistical evidence of class-wide gender disparities attributable to discrimination; and (4) anecdotal evidence from class members around the country of discriminatory attitudes held or tolerated by management. See Dukes I, 222 F.R.D. at 145. Wal-Mart contends that this evidence is not sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.

What evidence does Wal-Mart present?

Plaintiffs presented evidence of: (1) uniform personnel and management structure across stores; (2) Wal-Mart headquarters's extensive oversight of store operations, company-wide policies governing pay and promotion decisions, and a strong, centralized corporate culture; (3) consistent gender-related disparities in every domestic region of the company. Such evidence supports Plaintiffs' contention that Wal-Mart operates a highly centralized company that promotes policies common to all stores and maintains a single system of oversight. Wal-Mart does not challenge this evidence.

What is the rule for class action certification?

Rule 23 (a) (4) permits certification of a class action only if "the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class." Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 (a) (4). This factor requires: (1) that the proposed representative Plaintiffs do not have conflicts of interest with the proposed class, and (2) that Plaintiffs are represented by qualified and competent counsel. See Hanlon, 150 F.3d at 1020; see also Molski, 318 F.3d at 955.

What is a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart?

Brief Fact Summary. A small group of women who alleged discrimination on the basis of gender filed a suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (D). The action was sought to be changed to a class action, with the certified class represented by the original small group of women who sued the company. This class was the largest ever class.

What did Betty Dukes do?

Betty Dukes (P), a female low-level Wal-Mart employee at a Pittsburgh, California, store, with five other women, filed a class-action against the alleged violation of civil rights by the company. The allegation was that the company’s policies resulted in nationwide discrimination against women in their employment, ...

How many women were in the Wal Mart class?

The class had more than 1.5 million women, all of whom were women employed by Wal-Mart after December 26, 1998. Wal-Mart (D) argued that the court should require individual lawsuits from Wal-Mart employees as the size of the class made it impossible to manage and increased the costs disproportionately.

Why does Wal-Mart not support the allegation of a policy of gender discrimination?

The testimony of the sociology expert who appeared for the plaintiffs does not provide useful support to the allegation of a policy of gender discrimination because the culture of Wal-Mart is conducive to gender bias.

Is a class action an exception?

The usual rule as concerns litigation is that it is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only. A class action is an exception, and it must be justified by the fact that a class representative must be part of the class in fact, interest and injury.

How many plaintiffs are there in the Wal Mart class action?

The District Court and the Court of Appeals approved the certification of a class comprising about one and a half million plaintiffs, current and former female employees of petitioner Wal-Mart who allege that the discretion exercised by their local supervisors over pay and promotion matters violates Title VII by discriminating against women. In addition to injunctive and declaratory relief, the plaintiffs seek an award of backpay. We consider whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).

Who conducted the statistical evidence for the Wal-Mart?

The statistical evidence consists primarily of regression analyses performed by Dr. Richard Drogin, a statistician, and Dr. Marc Bendick, a labor economist. Drogin conducted his analysis region-by-region, comparing the number of women promoted into management positions with the percentage of women in the available pool of hourly workers. After considering regional and national data, Drogin concluded that "there are statistically significant disparities between men and women at Wal-Mart... [and] these disparities ... can be explained only by gender discrimination." 603 F.3d, at 604 (internal quotation marks omitted). Bendick compared work-force data from Wal-Mart and competitive retailers and concluded that Wal-Mart "promotes a lower percentage of women than its competitors." Ibid.

What is a B class in Allison v. Citgo?

In Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp., 151 F.3d 402, 415 (C.A.5 1998), the Fifth Circuit held that a (b) (2) class would permit the certification of monetary relief that is "incidental to requested injunctive or declaratory relief, " which it defined as "damages that flow directly from liability to the class as a whole on the claims forming the basis of the injunctive or declaratory relief." In that court's view, such "incidental damage should not require additional hearings to resolve the disparate merits of each individual's case; it should neither introduce new substantial legal or factual issues, nor entail complex individualized determinations." Ibid. We need not decide in this case whether there are any forms of "incidental" monetary relief that are consistent with the interpretation of Rule 23 (b) (2) we have announced and that comply with the Due Process Clause. Respondents do not argue that they can satisfy this standard, and in any event they cannot.

What is a question of fact?

A "question" is ordinarily understood to be "[a] subject or point open to controversy." American Heritage Dictionary 1483 (3d ed.1992). See also Black's Law Dictionary 1366 (9th ed.2009) (defining "question of fact" as "[a] disputed issue to be resolved... [at] trial" and "question of law" as "[a]n issue to be decided by the judge"). Thus, a "question" "common to the class" must be a dispute, either of fact or of law, the resolution of which will advance the determination of the class members' claims. [14]

What is class action law?

The class action is "an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only." Califano v. Yamasaki,442 U.S. 682, 700-701, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). In order to justify a departure from that rule, "a class representative must be part of the class and `possess the same interest and suffer the same injury' as the class members." East Tex. Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez,431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War,418 U.S. 208, 216, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974)). Rule 23(a) ensures that the named plaintiffs are appropriate representatives of the class whose claims they wish to litigate. The Rule's four requirements—numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequate representation—"effectively `limit the class claims to those fairly encompassed by the named plaintiff's claims.'" General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon,457 U.S. 147, 156, 102 S.Ct. 2364, 72 L.Ed.2d 740 (1982) (quoting General Telephone Co. of Northwest v. EEOC,446 U.S. 318, 330, 100 S.Ct. 1698, 64 L.Ed.2d 319 (1980)).

Where did Betty Dukes work?

Betty Dukes began working at a Pittsburgh, California, Wal-Mart in 1994. She started as a cashier, but later sought and [2548] received a promotion to customer service manager. After a series of disciplinary violations, however, Dukes was demoted back to cashier and then to greeter. Dukes concedes she violated company policy, but contends that the disciplinary actions were in fact retaliation for invoking internal complaint procedures and that male employees have not been disciplined for similar infractions. Dukes also claims two male greeters in the Pittsburgh store are paid more than she is.

Does proof of commonality overlap with merits contention?

In this case, proof of commonality necessarily overlaps with respondent s' merits contention that Wal-Mart engages in a pattern or practiceof discrimination.[7] That is so because, in resolving an individual's Title VII claim, the crux of the inquiry is "the reason for a particular employment decision," Cooper v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond,467 U.S. 867, 876, 104 S.Ct. 2794, 81 L.Ed.2d 718 (1984). Here respondents wish to sue about literally millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding the alleged reasonsfor all those decisions together, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members' claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.

10. West Virginia Personal Injury 2019

The West Virginia Personal injury lawsuit involved a 52-year-old woman that went grocery shopping with her granddaughter in one of the Walmart stores in the area. While in the store, the store’s security personnel caught someone shoplifting and went on to detain him at the back of the store.

9. Pennsylvania Employees Class Action Suit

Over the past decade, the mega-retailer Walmart had faced several wage and hour lawsuits. Employees of the Pennsylvania branch filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the company’s handbook required all workers to be paid for certain work breaks depending on the duration of their shift.

8. Videotape in Pennsylvania Walmart Bathroom

On 25. December 2009, ABC News reported that a Walmart Supercenter located in Pennsylvania videotaped the store’s customers and workers in a unisex bathroom. Seven current and former Walmart workers from the Tire and Lube department in Easton, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit against four local managers in Walmart’s Arkansas-based corporation.

7. EEOC (Janice Smith) Vs. Walmart Stores Inc

The lead plaintiff in the EEOC (Janice Smith) Vs. Walmart Stores Inc. was The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The lawsuit was heard in the Eastern District court of Kentucky in 2001. According to the Huffington Post, it was filed on sexual discrimination grounds, the involved parties being female employees in Walmart’s Distribution Center.

6. Brown Vs. Walmart Inc

This matter was heard in the US District Court of The Northern District of California. Former California cashiers accused Walmart of failing to provide them with seating as they worked. During the Court’s proceedings, Walmart failed to challenge the plaintiffs’ accusations for seating violations.

5. Walmart Vs. City of Pontiac, Michigan

The Walmart Vs. City of Pontiac, Michigan case arose from allegations in an article published on April 21, 2012, by The New York Times. In this lawsuit, the retail giant agreed to settle the matter out of Court in an attempt to end the allegations of fraud brought against it, as reported by Reuters.

4. Smith Vs. Walmart Stores Inc

This lawsuit is cited as Smith v. Walmart Stores, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 652 (SD Miss. 2003). In this 2003 case file, the plaintiffs alleged that Walmart incorrectly mislabeled the pay stubs of some of its workers with the tags Wal-Mart or Walmart instead of the company’s full legal name.

Overview

Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a group of roughly 1.5 million women could not be certified as a valid class of plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Walmart employee, and others alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Walmart stores.

Background

Federal District Court

Court of Appeals

Supreme Court decision

See also

Notes

External links