Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is an ongoing (as of 2007) U.S.$11 billion sexual discrimination lawsuit, and the largest civil rights class action suit in United States history. It charges Wal-Mart with discriminating against women in promotions, pay, and job assignments in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The case started in 2000, when a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California named Betty Dukes filed a sex discrimination claim against her employer. Despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, Dukes claimed, she was denied the training she needed to advance to a higher, salaried position.

In June 2001, the lawsuit commenced in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, which granted the case class action status. The plaintiffs seek to represent 1.6 million women, including all women who work or have previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998.^[1] In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification. Wal-Mart appealed the decision, which has been criticized by conservatives as an inappropriate use of the class action mechanism.^[2] On February 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's class certification. Judge Harry Pregerson wrote for the majority, which also included Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, and Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld dissented.^[3]

In 2004, journalist Liza Featherstone published a book about the case, Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart in which she contends that Wal-Mart's success is based not only on its inexpensive merchandise or its popularity but also on bad labor practices.

In March 2007, the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) letter with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in support of advancing the discrimination class action suit stating, "A class action provides the only feasible means for women to address gender inequality against the world's largest employer."

Faced with a Petition for Rehearing En Banc that had been pending for over 10 months, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its initial opinion and issued a subsequent, superseding opinion in December, 2007. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the original petition for rehearing as moot in light of its superseding opinion, and invited Wal-Mart to re-file its petition. Among other notable changes to its original opinion, the Ninth Circuit significantly altered its opinion with respect to the admissibility of expert testimony and the use of Daubert challenges during a motion for class certification.