|
|
To keep up with current activities and gain access to our FREE content, REGISTER NOW!
To keep up with current activities and gain access to our FREE content, REGISTER NOW!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Favors Wal-Mart; Class Counsel Vows to Continue
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. According to legal experts, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. (a partner in the Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group in Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Chicago office) and Laura Maechtlen (a partner in the firm's San Francisco office), the Supreme Court’s opinion re-positions the goal posts on the playing fields of how workplace class actions are structured, defended, and litigated – viewed as a win for employers.
The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia and joined in by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, addresses two primary questions: (1) whether the order certifying a class conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a); and (2) whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and, if so, under what circumstances. The two issues are at the heart of most class actions, and the resolution of these questions often casts the die for success or failure in the prosecution or defense of complex discrimination lawsuits.
The Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs had to show that the employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. It concluded that the testimony demonstrated no linkage between sexual-bias stereotyping and employment decisions impacting the class members. In essence, it fell far short of "significant proof" that the company operated under a general policy of discrimination.
The SCOTUS ruled that the only evidence of a corporate policy plaintiffs showed was Wal-Mart's policy of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment decisions, which in and of itself was not evidence sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.
In commenting on the Court's decision, Gisel Ruiz, EVP, Walmart U.S., said "Clearly, today's ruling in the Dukes case has important legal implications, but, just as important, it pulls the rug out from under the accusations made against Walmart over the last 10 years. Every female associate and every customer can feel even better about the company as a result of today's decision.
"Walmart has a long history of providing advancement opportunities for our female associates, and, over the years, we have made tremendous strides in developing women throughout the organization. In fact, we have created specific training and mentoring programs to help prepare women for opportunities at all levels in our company. As a result of our efforts, Walmart is often recognized as a great place for women to work."
The Supreme Court ruling in Dukes, say Maatman and Maechtlen, addresses several cutting-edge class action issues. These issues are of substantial importance to employment discrimination class action litigation and to employers generally because it establishes a roadmap for plaintiffs' lawyers and defense counsel alike in approaching class certification briefing and hearings. The new roadmap is decidedly more favorable to employers than before.
The impact of the Dukes case, say Maatman and Maechtlen, also impacts all employers’ human resources administration, policies, and procedures. As a result of the decision, employers should review HR practices related to pay and promotion decisions - subjective or not - to determine whether they are adversely impacting any classification of employee. Employers should design any subjective decision-making process and procedure carefully, by linking the process and procedure directly to each position and criteria for performance, ensuring that managers closest to performance are trained to make effective decisions, and consider an appeal process for employees considered but not selected for promotion or training opportunities.
Maatman and Maechtlen also recommend that employers review their programs aimed at increasing diversity and preventing discrimination to ensure that they are being implemented effectively, and should not avoid implementing these programs. Further, employers should continue providing training and communications regarding company policies, including those relating to equal employment opportunities, non-discrimination, and career opportunities.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, counsel for the Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs, issued a statement that the plaintiffs are disappointed by the decision. They assert that the ruling does not address whether Wal-Mart committed sex discrimination against its women employees. Rather, it addresses how women suing Wal-Mart must press ahead with their discrimination claims. Class counsel maintains that nothing the SCOTUS has ruled affects the power of the evidence of sex discrimination at Wal-Mart.
The ruling still allows women whose claims go back to Dec. 26, 1998 to file charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or bring their claims in court. Class counsel says they had planned for various outcomes before the Supreme Court— including this one—and have put in place plans to assist as many women Wal-Mart class members as possible with their claims.
Class counsel also states that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not end this case or, as they describe it, the struggle for equal pay and fair promotions at Wal-Mart. Current and former Wal-Mart women will be contacted by the Firm directly and via the official Website: www.Walmartclass.com.
Sources:
Gerald Maatman, Jr., a partner in the Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group in Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Chicago office. Mr. Maatman has a primary emphasis in his practice on defending employers sued in employment-related class actions and EEOC pattern and practice lawsuits brought in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He also pioneered the process of conducting employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring effective and practical personnel policies and protocols.
Laura J. Maechtlen, a partner in the San Francisco office of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Ms. Maechtlen's practice is focused on employment litigation and includes the defense of wage and hour class and collective actions arising out of alleged violations of the California Labor Code and/or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Maechtlen's practice also focuses on employment litigation of discrimination and harassment cases brought as multi-plaintiff and class actions under federal and state statutory laws. Ms. Maechtlen also has experience litigating against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), both at the early charge stage and in large-scale EEOC pattern-and-practice litigation.
The Seyfarth Workplace Class Action Blog (www.seyfarth.com), a one-of-a-kind resource for corporate employers, HR professionals, C-suite executives, and corporate counsel facing the complex world of high-stakes workplace litigation. The Blog is the daily platform from Seyfarth's Annual Workplace Class Action Report, the sole compendium in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to complex workplace litigation.
PRNewswire
U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Favors Wal-Mart; Class Counsel Vows to Continue
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. According to legal experts, Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. (a partner in the Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group in Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Chicago office) and Laura Maechtlen (a partner in the firm's San Francisco office), the Supreme Court’s opinion re-positions the goal posts on the playing fields of how workplace class actions are structured, defended, and litigated – viewed as a win for employers.
The opinion, authored by Justice Scalia and joined in by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, addresses two primary questions: (1) whether the order certifying a class conforms to the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a); and (2) whether claims for monetary relief can be certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and, if so, under what circumstances. The two issues are at the heart of most class actions, and the resolution of these questions often casts the die for success or failure in the prosecution or defense of complex discrimination lawsuits.
The Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs had to show that the employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. It concluded that the testimony demonstrated no linkage between sexual-bias stereotyping and employment decisions impacting the class members. In essence, it fell far short of "significant proof" that the company operated under a general policy of discrimination.
The SCOTUS ruled that the only evidence of a corporate policy plaintiffs showed was Wal-Mart's policy of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment decisions, which in and of itself was not evidence sufficient to raise an inference of discrimination.
In commenting on the Court's decision, Gisel Ruiz, EVP, Walmart U.S., said "Clearly, today's ruling in the Dukes case has important legal implications, but, just as important, it pulls the rug out from under the accusations made against Walmart over the last 10 years. Every female associate and every customer can feel even better about the company as a result of today's decision.
"Walmart has a long history of providing advancement opportunities for our female associates, and, over the years, we have made tremendous strides in developing women throughout the organization. In fact, we have created specific training and mentoring programs to help prepare women for opportunities at all levels in our company. As a result of our efforts, Walmart is often recognized as a great place for women to work."
The Supreme Court ruling in Dukes, say Maatman and Maechtlen, addresses several cutting-edge class action issues. These issues are of substantial importance to employment discrimination class action litigation and to employers generally because it establishes a roadmap for plaintiffs' lawyers and defense counsel alike in approaching class certification briefing and hearings. The new roadmap is decidedly more favorable to employers than before.
The impact of the Dukes case, say Maatman and Maechtlen, also impacts all employers’ human resources administration, policies, and procedures. As a result of the decision, employers should review HR practices related to pay and promotion decisions - subjective or not - to determine whether they are adversely impacting any classification of employee. Employers should design any subjective decision-making process and procedure carefully, by linking the process and procedure directly to each position and criteria for performance, ensuring that managers closest to performance are trained to make effective decisions, and consider an appeal process for employees considered but not selected for promotion or training opportunities.
Maatman and Maechtlen also recommend that employers review their programs aimed at increasing diversity and preventing discrimination to ensure that they are being implemented effectively, and should not avoid implementing these programs. Further, employers should continue providing training and communications regarding company policies, including those relating to equal employment opportunities, non-discrimination, and career opportunities.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC, counsel for the Dukes v. Wal-Mart plaintiffs, issued a statement that the plaintiffs are disappointed by the decision. They assert that the ruling does not address whether Wal-Mart committed sex discrimination against its women employees. Rather, it addresses how women suing Wal-Mart must press ahead with their discrimination claims. Class counsel maintains that nothing the SCOTUS has ruled affects the power of the evidence of sex discrimination at Wal-Mart.
The ruling still allows women whose claims go back to Dec. 26, 1998 to file charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or bring their claims in court. Class counsel says they had planned for various outcomes before the Supreme Court— including this one—and have put in place plans to assist as many women Wal-Mart class members as possible with their claims.
Class counsel also states that the Supreme Court’s ruling does not end this case or, as they describe it, the struggle for equal pay and fair promotions at Wal-Mart. Current and former Wal-Mart women will be contacted by the Firm directly and via the official Website: www.Walmartclass.com.
Sources:
Gerald Maatman, Jr., a partner in the Wage & Hour Litigation Practice Group in Seyfarth Shaw LLP's Chicago office. Mr. Maatman has a primary emphasis in his practice on defending employers sued in employment-related class actions and EEOC pattern and practice lawsuits brought in federal and state courts throughout the United States. He also pioneered the process of conducting employment practices audits to assist employers in structuring effective and practical personnel policies and protocols.
Laura J. Maechtlen, a partner in the San Francisco office of Seyfarth Shaw LLP. Ms. Maechtlen's practice is focused on employment litigation and includes the defense of wage and hour class and collective actions arising out of alleged violations of the California Labor Code and/or the Fair Labor Standards Act. Ms. Maechtlen's practice also focuses on employment litigation of discrimination and harassment cases brought as multi-plaintiff and class actions under federal and state statutory laws. Ms. Maechtlen also has experience litigating against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), both at the early charge stage and in large-scale EEOC pattern-and-practice litigation.
The Seyfarth Workplace Class Action Blog (www.seyfarth.com), a one-of-a-kind resource for corporate employers, HR professionals, C-suite executives, and corporate counsel facing the complex world of high-stakes workplace litigation. The Blog is the daily platform from Seyfarth's Annual Workplace Class Action Report, the sole compendium in the U.S. dedicated exclusively to complex workplace litigation.
PRNewswire
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DON'T MISS A SINGLE ISSUE!
DON'T MISS A SINGLE ISSUE!
|
|
|