Wal-Mart wins US top court sex-bias case ruling

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court  ruled for Wal-Mart Stores Inc today in the largest  sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, saying class-action  status for female employees seeking billions of dollars had  been improperly granted.
The justices overturned a U.S. appeals court ruling that  more than a million female employees nationwide could join in  the lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of paying women less and giving  them fewer promotions.
The Supreme Court agreed with Wal-Mart that the  class-action certification violated federal rules for such  lawsuits.
The high court accepted Wal-Mart’s main argument that the  female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores  nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in  common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.
The Supreme Court only decided whether the 10-year-old  lawsuit can proceed to trial as a group, not the merits of the  sex-discrimination allegations at the heart of the case.
Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer and the largest  private U.S. employer, has denied the allegations and said it  has operated under a policy barring discrimination.
The ruling in the biggest business case of the high court’s  2010-11 term could affect other class-action lawsuits against  the tobacco industry and Costco Wholesale Corp. It also was the  court’s most important job-discrimination dispute in more than  a decade.
Justice Antonin Scalia concluded for the court majority  that the class was not properly certified.
He said there must be significant proof that Wal-Mart  operated under a general policy of discrimination. “That is  entirely absent here,” he said, noting that Wal-Mart’s official  corporate policies forbid sex discrimination.
Wal-Mart shares rose after news of the decision, rising 46  cents, almost 1 percent, to $53.28 in morning trading on the  New York Stock Exchange.
The court’s four other conservatives joined all of Scalia’s  ruling. The court’s four liberals joined part of it, but  dissented in part.