ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal News Blogs -> JURIST - The Paper Chase

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Legal News

: JURIST - The Paper Chase

Ninth Circuit grants Wal-Mart rehearing in gender discrimination case

By Bernard Hibbitts (editor) and University of Pittsburgh School of Law students.

ADVERTISEMENTS
[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted an en banc rehearing to Wal-Mart, Inc. Friday in a long-running gender discrimination suit against the retailer. According to the order, a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges, excluding the three judges who heard an earlier appeal in which class certification was upheld, voted in favor of an en banc hearing. The case, Dukes v. Wal-Mart, Inc., is a class-action lawsuit filed in 2001 by female employees of Wal-Mart who have alleged that the retailer violated their civil rights by discriminating against them because of their gender. The class has grown to include nearly 2 million women who have worked for Wal-Mart since 1998. In the 2004 class certification ruling, a federal district court judge found evidence that Wal-Mart paid women less than men in every region and in most job categories, and took longer to promote women to management. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit originally ruled against Wal-Mart's appeal of the class certification in February 2007, then issued a new opinion in conjunction with its decision in December 2007. Wal-Mart appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 2005, arguing that the six lead plaintiffs were not typical or common of the class. Wal-Mart also objected to the size of the class certified, which they say is the largest in US history and would violate its due process rights. Wal-Mart argued that its stores operate independently and should be sued individually; plaintiffs' lawyers countered that individual lawsuits would be impractical. The district court also rejected Wal-Mart's claim that the class size was "impractical on its face" and approved a statistical formula for paying damages if discrimination is proven.

Full post as published by JURIST - The Paper Chase on February 14, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0351 secs (new cache)