Undeterred by the 2011 ruling of
the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, another group of that same company’s employees tried bringing a similar
class-action lawsuit, this time on behalf of a slightly narrower scope. In Dukes the plaintiffs’ class-action
lawsuit alleged company-wide sex discrimination on behalf of all female
employees and former employees, nation-wide.
The Supreme Court in that case dismissed the class action on the grounds
that the plaintiffs could not show sufficient “commonality” among such a
diverse group of putative plaintiffs, especially where the challenged decisions
involved distinct stores and managers. The
plaintiffs in Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., apparently tried to get
around the problems encountered by the plaintiffs in Dukes by limiting
the scope of their complaint to “Region 14,” which included all female Wal-Mart
employees in Wisconsin , Illinois ,
Indiana and Michigan . Unfortunately for the plaintiffs
and their counsel the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals nixed their class action
claims for the same reasons relied on in Dukes. Although the plaintiffs in this case limited
their geographic scope, the court held that they did not overcome any of the
obstacles that prevented the plaintiffs in Dukes from proceeding as a
class; they did not show that all of the proposed class members shared any
common questions of law or fact.
As in Dukes, the
plaintiffs in this case complained of a number of practices they claim resulted
in lower rates of pay and promotion for female employees than for their male
counterparts. However, disparate results
do not necessarily mean that there is a specific discriminatory policy that has
negatively affected all of the potential class members. Even if these women were all discriminated
against because of their sex, the court determined that a class-action lawsuit was
not the appropriate avenue for them to pursue their claims.
