US Supreme Court hears landmark sexism case

Betty Dukes (C), one of the six named plaintiffs in the Dukes v Wal-Mart case © AFP/Getty Images Alex Wong

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The Supreme Court began hearing a bid by Wal-Mart to stop as many as 1.5 million female workers from achieving class-action status in the largest sexual discrimination case in US history.

Rejection would pave the way for claims that could cost Wal-Mart, the biggest private employer in the United States and the largest retailer in the world, tens of billions of dollars in back-pay and punitive damages.

Even more significantly, it would set a new precedent for labor discrimination cases and open the door to a possible flood of class-action suits from women, minority groups and people with disabilities.

The original case was filed a decade ago by six female Wal-Mart employees who claim they systematically received lower pay than their male counterparts and were passed over for promotions.

The liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court in San Francisco agreed by a 2-1 vote in 2007 and again in a narrow 6-5 decision last April to grant the case the class-action status the women sought.

Wal-Mart, which argues that decisions are left to individual managers across its more than 3,400 stores and that any discrimination was not the result of an over-arching corporate policy, appealed to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the matter is whether the nature of the discrimination against the Wal-Mart women is uniform enough to be treated in one single case.

Legal observers say the Supreme Court is unlikely to decide in favor of the women, noting its tendency to make pro-business and pro-free market rulings.

During opening oral arguments on Tuesday, several justices expressed skepticism that between 500,000 and 1.5 million women could be lumped together in one case.

In a positive sign for Wal-Mart, associate justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a crucial swing vote, seemed particularly unconvinced the case merited class-action status.

“There are some inconsistencies,” Kennedy said, asking: “It’s not clear to me: What is the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted under your theory of the case?”

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs note that women at Wal-Mart made up about two-thirds of the workers but only a fraction became store managers.

They also point out that in nearly every job category, women earned less than men, even though most had logged more years with the company than their male counterparts.

“We brought the case in this size because we were challenging company-wide practices that discriminate, consistently discriminated against women in every one of the regions in which the company does business in this country,” plaintiffs’ attorney Joseph Sellers replied.

The women are seeking back-pay and punitive damages, as well as a judgement that would force Wal-Mart to amend its pay practices.

If the court allows the women to sue as one bloc, the case would constitute the largest labor discrimination case in US history, with tens of billions of dollars at stake.

Wal-Mart warned last August of the enormity of the class-action, describing it as “larger than the active-duty personnel in the army, navy, air force, marines, and coast guard combined.”

If the company loses, it risks having to pay out on claims from all the female workers it has employed since 1998.

Wal-Mart maintains it is impossible to assert a case of discrimination based on company employment figures and says there is no pay difference between men and women at the vast majority of its outlets.

Instances where those differences do exist are on merit, not because of a discriminatory company-wide policy, Wal-Mart insists.

A final Supreme Court ruling is expected before the end of June.

Created under Article III of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court is the the top judicial body in the United States and the final arbiter on fundamental legal matters.

It consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices — all of whom are appointed for life by the president.

Court rulings are approved by a majority and their opinions written up by one of the justices. The other justices can add their own comments or, if they opposed the ruling, write a dissenting opinion.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license