The U.S. Supreme Court may have stopped a nationwide gender discrimination class action against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., but it did not stop the plaintiffs’ lawyers. Last week they filed two statewide class actions in California and Texas, claiming that the retailer gave lower pay and fewer promotions to thousands of female employees. And already, the plaintiffs’ attorneys and Wal-Mart’s counsel are arguing about whether the new suits meet the Supreme Court’s commonality requirement for class actions.
“The Supreme Court rejected the nationwide class because it did not closely enough follow the [pay and promotion] decision-making processes that were being challenged,” said Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, the plaintiffs’ co-lead lawyer. The new complaints, Mr. Sellers maintained, are tailored around the company’s regional decision-making model, and also include new statistics and anecdotes specific to each region.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
