Judge 'Concerned' About Reviving Walmart Sex Discrimination Suit

Walmart gender discrimination lawsuitBy Dan Levine

SAN FRANCISCO -- A U.S. judge on Friday said he was "seriously concerned" about whether women led by a Pittsburgh resident who are suing Walmart Stores had enough evidence to move forward with their refiled gender discrimination lawsuit.

Plaintiffs alleging the world's largest retailer denied them pay raises and promotions because of their gender, including former Bay Area Walmart worker Betty Dukes, are trying to regroup after the U.S. Supreme Court last year dismantled a class of up to 1.5 million current and former Walmart workers. The Walmart workers filed a reformulated lawsuit in a San Francisco federal court in October, saying they were confining their allegations to California.

Speaking at a hearing on Friday, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the plaintiffs could only move forward with a refiled lawsuit if they could show new evidence to overcome the Supreme Court's criticisms. And Breyer said he had "difficulty" seeing where the plaintiffs had come up with that evidence.

Brad Seligman, an attorney for the women, argued that they had uncovered enough new facts, including specific comments by Walmart managers.

"This is direct evidence of discrimination," Seligman said.

The refiled lawsuit, which could include roughly 45,000 women, is part of a strategy to bring more narrowly tailored class actions.

Walmart attorney Theodore Boutrous argued that the plaintiffs hadn't come up with anything new.

"These are the exact arguments the plaintiff has been making for 11 years," Boutrous said.
The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California is Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter and Christine Kwapnoski, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Walmart Stores Inc, 01-2252.

Don't Miss: Companies Hiring Now

Looking for a job? Click here to get started.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum


Filter by:

Wake up everyone. The SCOTUS will always rule in favor of a transnational corporation over an individual group of citizens- that's what Roberts, Alito and their gang do. It's not about conservatism or anything partisan- It's about ALWAYS giving corporations more rights than individuals. That's how they came up with the BS that corporations are people.

June 12 2012 at 12:11 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Is the U.S. Constitution is a part of the Union? Why do we need to live with them, all they do is hurt the economy.
How far will it hurt everyone before we can live without them?

June 11 2012 at 5:03 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
Thrift Store

Mike id walmart was Unionized you would see the prices of the items for sale double as Current day Unions have caused more companies to close or move overseas. The Unions of today are greedy bloodsuckers .They are not the Unions of past years

June 11 2012 at 3:02 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
2 replies to Thrift Store's comment

You have fallen into the trap that big coorporations have set, opposing Unions, when the real enemy is the republican attacks on the middle class.

June 11 2012 at 3:12 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to zubedaniel's comment

Seems like Obama A Democrat is the biggest enemy of the Middle class. He talks a lot, talks cheap, his results don't match his rhetoric. Sounds like you've fallen into that big trap.

June 11 2012 at 7:02 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down

If you look at the decline of the middle class you will see it is in direct correlation to the decline in unions.

Notice that all the things that are called bad by the right are things corporations don't like such as unions and the EPA.


June 11 2012 at 3:55 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

unions???? WALMART!! dosent have a union like they should.

June 11 2012 at 2:50 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply

The Supreme Court is capable of only partisan decisions. Nothing is decided on it's merits, only if it is supported by their political affiliations!

June 11 2012 at 2:40 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

As one comment stated - Just the Unions wanting their dues....

Thank you, Lord, for people like Walker in Wisconsin - Fighting the unjust of Unions.

Yeah, I know about Unions - I even have a cousin who Works for them................
he may be one of the bullies...............

June 11 2012 at 2:03 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Case needs to be Closed AND if the women keep on - Fine them....
Let them pay the court costs..
- Because there Is No case.............

And I a woman..

June 11 2012 at 2:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to bms2buy4's comment

Your comments are ignorant. My sister was harassed and denied promotion until she left in disgust. Why post such blatant lies, without knowing anything about the truth of these suits?

June 11 2012 at 11:04 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
James Bridges

They knew they didnt have a case so they decided to back off some and the reason is because they know they can't win because it is a BS case

June 11 2012 at 1:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

Anything can happen, but it is hard to believe that after decades of the EEOC, that a major corp would defy the govt and discriminate against a gender that dominates employment at that company.

June 11 2012 at 1:13 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply

This lawsuit is being pressed and backed by unions wanting to get a piece of the very big Walmart pie. Walmart employs over 1.4 million people in the U.S. alone. That makes for a lot of union dues.

June 11 2012 at 1:13 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply

Search Articles

Picks From the Web