By Eric Meyer
Back in June, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a class of 1.5 million women could not pursue gender discrimination claims together against Wal-Mart because they lacked a common injury.
If, at first, you don't succeed, file this Complaint in California on behalf of a class of only 90,000 plaintiffs. Will this small smaller lawsuit hold up?
Size matters, ladies.
Let's recap exactly what went wrong the first time, when the class consisted of 1,500,000 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs alleged that, nationwide, there was a general practice of discrimination against women. However, the Supreme Court reasoned that the class, consisting of so many current and former Wal-Mart employees from across the county, could not have possibly suffered the same injury:
The only corporate policy that the plaintiffs' evidence convincingly establishes is Wal-Mart's "policy" of allowing discretion by local supervisors over employment matters. On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action; it is a policy against having uniform employment practices.
Please click here to read the entire post.
This article was originally published on Eric B. Meyer's blog, The Employer Handbook
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.