• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Supreme Court: Save Wal-Mart, The Economy Lives Better

    The Supreme Court’s 9 to 0 decision today in Wal-Mart v. Dukes stopped an abusive class action lawsuit and should bring a huge sigh of relief that the plaintiffs’ bar was stopped from further exploiting employers who create jobs.  Although the administration will probably never publicly admit it given its strong allegiance to plaintiffs’ lawyers and their massive campaign contributions, they should also be relieved since a contrary decision against America’s largest retailer (a long-time Heritage Foundation donor) could have hurt our struggling economy.

    The Court, in a decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia, reversed the Ninth Circuit (no surprise – the Ninth Circuit is almost always reversed), which had certified a nation-wide, class action lawsuit by current and former Wal-Mart employees.   Three women wanted to be certified to represent 1.5 million Wal-Mart employees, claiming that the retailer had discriminated on the basis of their sex by denying them equal pay or promotions    But the Court held that the federal rule governing class action lawsuits requires a common issue of fact or law that predominates the issues raised in a lawsuit and whose resolution will resolve the claim of every member of the class.  The plaintiffs could not show such commonality in the present case.

    The Court approvingly cited the dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit that the potential Wal-Mart employees “held a multitude of different jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart’s hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female), subject to a variety of regional policies that all differed . . . Some thrived while others did poorly. They have little in common but their sex and this lawsuit.”

    The four liberal justices led by Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed that the class of Wal-Mart plaintiffs had been improperly certified.  But Ginsburg claimed that the Court erred in entirely disqualifying the class and dismissing the lawsuit, arguing that the Court should have sent the case back to the lower courts to consider whether the common class questions might “predominate” over individual issues in accordance with the federal rule.

    No doubt liberal media outlets will paint this as a 5 to 4 decision by the conservative justices of the Court, ignoring the fact that all nine justice agreed on the main, substantive issue – that the lower court ruling in the class action lawsuit was improper.  The liberal justices simply disagreed on what to do to fix what the lower courts had done wrong.

    But Justice Scalia’s opinion is the correct decision based on the applicable legal standard.  And the result has the added economic benefit of preventing damage to a company that is one of the largest private employers in the United States, providing jobs for more than 1.4 million people in the United States and 2.1 million worldwide.  A good day at the Supreme Court for both the law and our economy.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    27 Responses to Supreme Court: Save Wal-Mart, The Economy Lives Better

    1. ash says:

      All those Chinese workers send their thanks.

      • Joseph Meyer says:

        I am assuming you prefer a world where Americans of limited means pay vastly more for the sorts of things they purchase at Walmart, large numbers of Chinese workers, instead of receiving low wages, receive no wages, and where Americans work primarilly on assembly lines in factories making products such as flipflops.

      • John says:

        Get real Ash, how many employees does walmart have here in the US. Maybe if the unions had not shut down textile industries here in the US, we wouldn't have to get our goods from China.

      • Rudy says:

        This has nothing to do with Chinese workers. You certainly overlook how due process has been protected, you mercantilist.

    2. Brady Shackelford says:

      This lawsuit never should have been certified as class action, and any judge with any kind of law degree (except the 9th Circuit) could see that. I'm glad that the full Supreme Court agreed as well.

    3. Nathan Hodges says:

      I'm glad that this class action lawsuit was voted down. this is a simple ploy by the liberals to kill big business and free market enterprises. this law was found to be illegal with all of the confusion the lawsuit had in it. the liberals want us all to have to depend on the gov. and they want us to be just like Greece. this foolishness is through out the media,hollywood and these so called black leaders like jesse jackson and al sharpton.

    4. Bobbie says:

      guess what ladies? I don't work for a retail branch because I choose not to. I quit one job in my life that was discriminating against me and found another. Problem solved. I would've stuck it out but it didn't pay enough to what I was put through. I didn't look to government for protection and justice. I worked through it all by my lonesome. It's empowering!

      Be careful ladies! Once you give up your sense of control and place it into the hands of those employed to promote your special interest you're easily influenced and end up the fools.

    5. Jeff, Illinois says:

      Wow, I thought at least on this issue common sense would dictate sensitivity for the many filing the suit. But no, conservatives are completely cracked if they readily side with poor old victimized defenseless Wall Mart. These posts can't possibly be serious. Conservatives maintain that government is the problem, but of course accordingly corporations have every one's best interest in mind.

      Amazing . .

      • Jaco Kleynhans says:

        Jeff, please show us the proof of a collective process of discrimination against this group. It's easy to say that Wal-Mart is a bully and all the other things you will attribute to them, but in a court you need some prove. This was taken up as a class action which means that the plaintiffs had to proof collective discrimination. Jaco in South Africa (where Wal-Mart just got approval to start doing business by buying one of the biggest retail companies in our country.)

        • Jeff, Illinois says:

          The point is conservatives readily side with Wal Mart . . when I think at least some scepticism would indicate a balanced credible assessment. Obviously the case was going to be complex . . but to so readily dismiss the plaintiffs continues to show me the lack of heart the conservatives have. How many of the individual complaints within the mass had real validity? But again corporations "always" and in "every" instance have our best interests in mind . .

          Amazing . .

          • Steve says:

            It has absolutely nothing to do with "lack of heart". It has to do with the rule of law, which you obviously are clueless about. When you bring about an accusation that has serious consequences (such as a far-reaching class action lawsuit), you had better be ready to back it up with proof, of which these plantiffs had not done. Shame on them. And on you too for thinking that we will allow a whining minority run our country! Like Bobbie said before, if you've got a problem, deal with it yourself! If we allow every disgruntled employee to file lawsuits like this one, we won't have an economy to worry about. Unless, Jeff, that is what you would like to see…

            • Jeff, Illinois says:

              Steve . . . it's not worth discussing with you . . you'll never get the point . .

          • Bob Cincinnati says:

            If each case has merit they can take them back to court on their own. No one is denying them the chance to their cases heard. This was just not a class action case. You're reading way to much into this ruling.

            • Jeff, Illinois says:

              Bob you need a more informed understanding of why class action suits are appropriate . .

      • jackie says:

        Someone once said ''The most uncommon thing is common sense.''

    6. Mike, Florida says:

      Just because a company employs a lot of people does not mean they are really helping the economy or this nation. If anything, a majority of WalMart money goes to China and overseas sweat shops that produce the items.
      This lawsuit should have just been sent back to a lower court to work things out and in the end force better working conditions.

      • Bob Cincinnati says:

        no one is forcing people to work at Wal-Mart. the next time you walk in to purchase an item tell the cashier that you want to pay more to help the workers.

        • Jeff, Illinois says:

          Bob

          Very narrow short sighted thinking . .

          • Brady, Charlotte says:

            Well, Jeff, would you pay 30% more for a product at Wal-Mart (or any other business for that matter) if it meant that Wal-Mart paid its employees more or offered them excellent benefits?

    7. Bobbie says:

      private businesses aren't suppose to ACCOMMODATE the hired. They signed the application and just as well, they can quit and apply somewhere else. It's a little fishy all these women claim to have been denied higher positions. I can't imagine there are that many high positions for all these women to have been denied if they even applied or have the necessary qualifications. . Same pay for the same job is equal to men and women. Hopefully they are reviewed according to merit and not by government mandate. I can see unequal pay based on work ethics but within a range.

      It's easy today to conjure up a story for attention and everybody play their part. I was apart of a class action lawsuit myself, only I gave in when I could because there was alot of fabrication for GREATER REWARD and of course, theatrics.

      I feel bad for big businesses the government is sure to take interest in any complaint as government's anxiety to collapse the private sector is seen with both eyes open! And well, boy, hmm, what is going to happen when government regulates walmart out of business? Will the ladies feel better about themselves when wal mart folds and they're forced on government dependency? Sure hope not!

      ps. empathetic, not heartless, just happen to be involved in a similar situation.

    8. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      So big business, big corp, big ag, big drug, big oil, etc. have their own best interests in mind. What's wrong with that? Don't you have your own best interests in mind? Do you hire the most expensive contractor or buy the most expensive car all else equal? Doesn't and shouldn't everyone, individual and business, have their own best interests in mind? Do not businesses, in the process of pursuing their own bests interests, hire and fire people, promote and demote people, give raises, add benefits, etc.? If Wal-Mart was not "giving you your due", paying you well enough or promoting you fast enough, what stopped you from moving to a business that would do so…or even starting your own business? We still live in a country relatively free enough where you can do that. If this lawsuit had been allowed to proceed, how many people would have been demoted, fired, not hired, not given a raise, had benefits cut, etc.? Laissez-faire.

    9. Jose says:

      The point some of you are missing is not that conservatives side with big business such as WalMart. I don’t have any lost love for WalMart myself. But conservatives generally side against the menace of the frivolous litigation lawyers that get richer on the backs of legitimate plaintiffs. The original plaintiffs would not have the means to take this case to the Supreme Court. They must have had the backing of big legal firms that only want to take their share of a larger pie, regardless of the future consequences to hard working Americans that have good paying jobs at places like WalMart. If there was discrimination, let the plaintiffs take it to court based on the merits of their proof. But let’s not encourage the irresponsible lawyers to continue driving our system into bankruptcy just for their personal gain. That is like many Democrat and Republican politicians, who mortgage our children’s future for their political gain.

    10. Bobbie says:

      Sorry Jose, you are definitely WRONG! Do you have any lost love for America?

    11. Bill W Williams says:

      I have been a truck driver for the past 46 years. I have worked for many different trucking companys during that time. Most of the companies that were union no longer exist( a large percentage ran out of business due to Teamster contracts that demanded to much money and benefits for the services rendered). Walmart is the BEST company I have ever driven for. They operate good equipment, are extremely safety conscious and for the past 9 years I have always had good pay and benefits. Walmart goes out of their way to be honest and fair with their people and I have never seen ANY discrimination while working there. Save Money & Live Better Walmart !!

    12. Bobbie says:

      the class action law suit at walmart is a perfect example of why we do not want the Pledge of Allegiance circumvented into "social" liberty and "social" justice for "all." The document specifically details liberty and justice with no adjective before them and "all" is defined as "each individual."

      Our minds abilities and independence is what's being destroyed by the conduct of society and governmental support removing individual power, individual freedom, individual rights, with a strong supporting of unions to hide the freedom people don't understand they have. The support of unions by the president of the country is disparaging to his pledge of our allegiance.with respect and honor to this country and that know themselves to use their life's abilities, their minds thoughts, to live free and independent for themselves!

      What's been happening is the infiltration of "social justice" which is resulting in the removal of personal freedom, personal rights, personal VOICE OF REASON and really above all, the ability to reach personal potential to the fullest! Pretty soon there will be no freedom to conduct business without government! and unions! Please conduct and hold firm the true meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance so there is proper interpretation and no misunderstanding of liberty and justice for all!

    13. Albert says:

      Welcome to the modern age where men work while women file frivolous lawsuits.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×