Posted on 08/08/2005 10:43:49 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest private employer, urged a federal appeals court Monday to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions.
Wal-Mart is appealing a federal judge's decision to let the nation's largest employment discrimination lawsuit go to trial. The suit claims that as many as 1.6 million current and former female employees earned less than men and were bypassed for promotions.
Wal-Mart attorney Theodore Boutrous told a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that women Wal-Mart employees were not discriminated against. "There's no significant disparity in terms of pay between men and woman," he said, citing a Wal-Mart study.
Judge Harry Pregerson told Boutrous that his legal briefs in the case were "arrogant" and that the circuit was not litigating the merits of the case. Pregerson said the appeals court was reviewing whether a federal judge abused his discretion in allowing the case to go to trial.
"We're not trying these issues today," Pregerson said when Boutrous insisted the company was innocent.
Wal-Mart, which faces billions of dollars in potential damages in the case, earned $10 billion last fiscal year and employs 1.3 million people.
The Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse, meanwhile, says the conventional rules of class actions should not apply in this case because its 3,400 stores, including Sam's Club warehouse outlets, operate like independent businesses.
Lawyers for the women urged the appeals panel to uphold the ruling last year by U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins of San Francisco that corporations must comply with a 1964 civil rights law prohibiting sex discrimination. Jenkins, in allowing the case to go to trial, ruled that lawyers for the women had enough anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial, which conflicted with Wal-Mart's study.
Brad Seligman, an attorney representing the women, said men were paid more than women companywide. "There were statistically significant differences in pay," he said.
Judge Andrew Kleinfeld suggested that Wal-Mart and the women settle the case out of court.
After the 40-minute hearing, lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a greeter at a Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, Calif., said, "I think our side showed great promise." Since the case was filed, her pay has increased from about $8 hourly to $13, she said.
Boutrous objected to Jenkins' plan: If companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial, it could force Wal-Mart to pay billions of dollars to women paid less than their male counterparts, with no opportunity to dispute their individual circumstances.
Jenkins rejected the idea of 1.6 million individual hearings as "impractical on its face" and has planned to use a statistical formula to compensate the women.
Wal-Mart, in seeking dismissal of the case, called that an unprecedented denial of due process.
Boutrous has suggested that women who allege they were discriminated against file lawsuits against individual stores. The women's lawyers said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.
The court did not indicate when it would decide whether the case can go to trial.
Cue the obligatory Made in China ad-hominem remarks from the Marxist wing of FR.
The anti business crowd will be along soon.
It's late and I'm going to bed. Smack them when they come.
How can a judge decide if another judge was abusive in letting the case go to trial if he doesn't hear the merits?. Why can a judge call an attorney "arrogant" and the attorney can't call the judge "arrogant" (or whatever)?. I think the judge is the arrogant one in this case for saying so and that over and over judges abuse their powers.
It was just a note on judges. I say this without knowing the "merits of case".
I'm not a big fan of Chinese products. I'm not a big fan of WalMart either.
If WalMart is innocent, it's records should prove it. If it is not, it is not.
The problem with the courts is that you can't necessarily expect a fair hearing. If it's a jury, who knows what the heck could happen.
I don't necessarily have a problem with this situation being reviewed, but I do have a very big problem with our courts and how things don't necessarily go right.
If WalMart operates on the up and up, I hope to hell the jury gets it right.
It's getting sicking being an employer in this sue-crazy country. These leftist laborer organizations view any employer as evil, and have unlimited resources to pay everyone top executive wages.
Then they wonder why they pick up and move to another country after they can't afford to do business here anymore.
After they chase wal-mart out, they can all bang on the 'mom and pop' store (who employ one person at min. wage, and sell made in china crap as well) and ask for a job.
I am a woman. Burt is a man. Burt gets paid more.
It can't possibly be because he works harder, is more efficient, and is better at the job.
It must be because I've got breasts.
9th Circus? I feel bad for Wal-Mart but dealing with the 9th Circus means they are toast on this one.IMHO.
IMO, this is a witch hunt by the feminists. 1.6 million former and current female employees filing a lawsuit simultaneously? C'mon. Who's representing them? This stinks to low hell.
They don't need any of those nasty old numbers. After all, as Barbie sez, math is hard. We all know that anecdotal evidence, unsubstantiated claims, and urban legends are much more reliable than those numbers.
Thanks for the additional comments.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.