Case: Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

3:01-cv-02252 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 8, 2001

Closed Date: 2016

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On June 8, 2001, a female Wal-Mart employee filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against her employer claiming gender discrimination. Although the original complaint was filed pro se, on June 19, 2001, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with counsel. Dozens of lawyers have worked on this case, but the lead counsel is Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on…

On June 8, 2001, a female Wal-Mart employee filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against her employer claiming gender discrimination. Although the original complaint was filed pro se, on June 19, 2001, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint with counsel. Dozens of lawyers have worked on this case, but the lead counsel is Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group. Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on September 12, 2002.

The named plaintiffs represented a class consisting of "all women employed at any Wal-Mart domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998 who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices." Estimates of the size of this class range from 700,000 to 1.5 million women. Plaintiffs alleged gender discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, they argued that Wal-Mart's corporate culture fostered ideals of male superiority, which resulted in fewer raises and promotions for female employees. Those women who did receive raises and promotions, the plaintiffs alleged, received them on a smaller scale and more slowly than male employees.

The plaintiff class brought gender discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Two of the named plaintiffs, both black, also brought claims under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act for racial discrimination. The plaintiffs sought relief in the form of back pay, front pay, lost compensation and benefits, and punitive damages. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought injunctive relief prohibiting discriminatory practices, restoring employees who quit or who Wal-Mart fired to their previous positions, and adjusting wage rates of current employees to what they would have been had Wal-Mart not discriminated.

The issue of class certification dominated early proceedings. Wal-Mart vigorously contested certification of such a large and broad class. The district court certified the class on June 21, 2004. 222 F.R.D. 137 (N.D. Cal. 2004).

Wal-Mart appealed the order for class certification. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's order in part on February 6, 2007, but then withdrew its opinion. 474 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir. 2007). The Ninth Circuit then issued a new opinion, affirming in part the district court's order, on December 11, 2007. 509 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2007). Finally, the Ninth Circuit upheld its prior decision after a rehearing en banc. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 603 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2010). The Ninth Circuit decisions were docketed under 04-16688 and 04-16720, the latter covering a cross-appeal by the plaintiffs.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the district court's order but remanded to determine whether the class could be certified as to punitive damages. Additionally, the Circuit limited the ability of some of the named Plaintiffs to receive back pay for expected promotions if there was no "objective data" on hand to prove they were in a position to receive a promotion and that the court would not rely on speculation.

Additionally, the Ninth Circuit indicated that putative class members who were no longer employed at the time the complaint was filed could not participate in the injunctive or declaratory relief of the suit, although they could be entitled to damages under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). The Ninth Circuit indicated that although the plaintiffs sought to certify the class under Rule 23(b)(2), which is for claims seeking injunctive relief, the district court on remand could certify some claims under Rule 23(b)(3), such as the punitive damage claims. Overall, the potentially large monetary award of this case did not prevent certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

The class certification litigation did touch upon the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs presented anecdotal evidence of discrimination through the testimony of the named Plaintiffs and other employees. Plaintiffs also presented expert testimony of statisticians and sociologists to demonstrate that Wal-Mart's corporate structure encouraged a culture of gender discrimination. Wal-Mart countered with its own statistician, but the district and appellate courts found them less persuasive. But the Ninth Circuit noted that in this preliminary stage, it was not in fact evaluating the credibility of this testimony, but was rather attempting to determine if there were issues of commonality between class members that warranted certification.

Because of the split in the circuits regarding the standard by which to evaluate class certification, the Supreme Court granted the defendants' petition for writ of certiorari on December 06, 2010. The case was argued before the Supreme Court on March 29, 2011 and decided on June 20, 2011.

In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that Wal-Mart's policy of granting local supervisors discretion in pay and promotion decisions, which allegedly has a disparate impact on female employees, did not provide a common question of fact, as required for class certification under Rule 23(a)(2). 31 S.Ct. 2541 (2011). Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court and was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito. Justice Ginsburg wrote an opinion dissenting on the Rule 23(a)(2) question and was joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. All justices agreed that the back pay claims in the case were improperly certified under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Court concluded that the evidence presented of Wal-Mart's alleged discriminatory policies was insufficient to warrant class certification. Relying on General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon, it found that the plaintiffs needed to show "[s]ignificant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination." Because the expert that the plaintiffs relied was not able to specify the extent to which stereotypes affected employment decisions, the Court deemed that his testimony did not meet this standard.

Apart from this rejected evidence, the majority found that the plaintiffs did "not identif[y] a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company," citing Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust to declare that the plaintiffs needed to "identify[] the specific employment practice that is challenged." Based on this principle, the Court rejected the plaintiffs' statistical and anecdotal evidence for failing to identify particular practices that affected the entire class. The statistical evidence, said the Court, pointed only to the existence of disparities rather than to any common practice, and the anecdotal evidence was too little and not sufficiently representative for the size of class certified. As a result, the Court concluded that "there is [not] even a single common question" that ties the class together.

Justice Ginsburg dissented from this conclusion. After questioning the majority's scrutiny of the District Court's discretion regarding Rule 23(a), she focused on Watson's conclusion that practices not motivated by discriminatory intent, but that produce discriminatory results, do give rise to Title VII claims. For the instant case, Justice Ginsburg noted that managers may be susceptible to unconscious biases, and that Wal-Mart's uniform policy of discretion does nothing to combat such biases. Thus, she argued, there was sufficient basis for class certification and the majority had mistakenly imported Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements into 23(a)(2), effectively requiring the common questions of law or fact to predominate over individual questions. (Justice Ginsburg's opinion also dismisses Falcon, which dealt with intentional discrimination, as irrelevant, since the instant case, which involves disparate treatment, involved Wal-Mart's companywide policies affecting all female workers.)

The Court unanimously agreed that the back pay claims in the case could not be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) because "the monetary relief is not incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief." It characterized the back pay claims as individualized relief against which a defendant could provide defenses against specific plaintiffs. It also noted that only Rule 23(b)(3) would be appropriate for back pay claims, since that provision, and not (b)(2), offers procedural protections like mandatory notice and the ability to opt out.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint on October 27, 2011, seeking class certification in line with different standards since the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of the case. The class was newly defined to include "present and former female Wal-Mart retail store employees who have been subjected to gender discrimination as a result of specific policies and practices in Wal-Mart’s regions located in whole or in part in California." The court denied class certification in August 2013, and the plaintiffs' subsequent appeal to the Ninth Circuit was denied. After two more years of discovery, six new women moved to intervene as plaintiffs. The next day, the parties moved to voluntarily and jointly dismiss the case as they had reached a confidential settlement agreement, leading the Court to order the intervenor's motion moot.

On August 16, 2016, the parties wishing to intervene appealed the mootness of their motion to the Ninth Circuit. However, on November 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of the case. The case is now closed.

Summary Authors

Xin Chen (7/5/2011)

Virginia Weeks (10/29/2016)

Eva Richardson (10/14/2018)

Related Cases

Rodriguez v. Hayes, Central District of California (2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5781336/parties/dukes-v-wal-mart-stores-inc/


Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Breyer, Charles R. (California)

Chen, Edward Milton (California)

Corley, Jacqueline Scott (California)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Graber, Susan (Oregon)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Ikuta, Sandra Segal (California)

Jenkins, Martin J. (California)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Breyer, Charles R. (California)

Chen, Edward Milton (California)

Corley, Jacqueline Scott (California)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Graber, Susan (Oregon)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Ikuta, Sandra Segal (California)

Jenkins, Martin J. (California)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

Paez, Richard A. (California)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (California)

Rymer, Pamela Ann (California)

Scalia, Antonin (District of Columbia)

Silverman, Barry G. (Arizona)

Walker, Vaughn R. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bennett, Merit (New Mexico)

Caesar, Michael Victor (California)

Caiola, Michelle Anne (Illinois)

Dai, Cornelia (California)

Firth, Charles V. (New Mexico)

Gardner, Debra (Maryland)

Goldsmith, Julie (District of Columbia)

Grossman-Swenson, Sarah T. (California)

Herrera, Irma (California)

Hurtado, Arcelia Leticia (California)

Kosh, Talia (New Mexico)

Kotagal, Kalpana (District of Columbia)

Larkin, Jocelyn Dion (California)

Lawrence, Elizabeth A. (California)

Marshall, Shauna Iris (California)

Molumphy, Mark Cotten (California)

Ng, Doris (California)

Reisch, Jennifer Abby (California)

Reiser, Julie Goldsmith (District of Columbia)

Renick, Randall R. (California)

Richardson, Anne K. (California)

Romer-Friedman, Peter (District of Columbia)

Seligman, Brad (California)

Sellers, Joseph Marc (District of Columbia)

Smith, Debra A. (California)

Stemerman, Steven L. (California)

Thomas, Sheila Yvette (California)

Tinkler, Stephen (New Mexico)

Tompkins, Charles E. (District of Columbia)

Vagins, Deborah (District of Columbia)

Varela, Sarah (California)

Webber, Christine E. (District of Columbia)

Yang, Jenny R. (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Abell, Nancy L. (California)

Alberts, Katherine A. (California)

Boutrous, Theodore J. Jr. (California)

Brass, Rachel (California)

Brown, Frederick (California)

Catlett, Steven T. (Illinois)

Conway, Catherine A. (California)

Cripps, Jesse A. Jr. (California)

Dacre, Catherine M. (California)

DeCamp, Paul (California)

Diekmann, Gilmore F. Jr. (California)

DiNardo, Lawrence C. (Illinois)

Dodge Byrnes, Jaime (California)

Edwards, John W. (California)

Grossman, Paul (District of Columbia)

Huibonhoa, Katherine C. (California)

Johnson, Barbara L (District of Columbia)

Kapur, Theane Evangelis (California)

Lees, Gail E. (California)

Maryott, Michele Leigh (California)

Mollen, Neal D. (District of Columbia)

Nelson, Karl G. (Texas)

Olson, Theodore B. (District of Columbia)

Perry, Mark A. (District of Columbia)

Rose, Araanda M. (California)

Simerly, Janine Syll (California)

Strauch, John L. (Illinois)

Tayrani, Amir Cameron (District of Columbia)

Other Attorney(s)

Barker, Vicky L. (California)

Barton, Mark E. (California)

Beck, James (Pennsylvania)

Becker, Evelyn L. (District of Columbia)

Beisner, John (District of Columbia)

Berkman, Richard L. (Pennsylvania)

Berman, Jeffrey A (California)

Blackwood, Vincent J. (District of Columbia)

Bloch, Adrienne L. (California)

Bogue, Maureen K. (California)

Bruce, David R. (California)

Burton, Mark Etheredge (California)

Coukos, Pamela (District of Columbia)

Farrell, Sandi (District of Columbia)

Fay, Raymond C. (District of Columbia)

Fentonmiller, Laura C. (District of Columbia)

Foreman, Michael L. (District of Columbia)

Green, Jennifer (New York)

Hillebrand, Gail (California)

Kohrman, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)

Krischer, Joel E. (California)

Lee, Bill Lann (California)

Popeo, Daniel J. (District of Columbia)

Radowitz, Melvin (District of Columbia)

Reesman, Ann Elizabeth (District of Columbia)

Ross, Terri L. (New York)

Rossman, Stuart T. (Massachusetts)

Sagafi, Jahan C (California)

Samp, Richard A. (District of Columbia)

Savage, Mark Randall (California)

Schneider, Todd Michael (California)

Sloan, Barbara L. (District of Columbia)

Tirona, Marissa M. (California)

Vann, Rae T. (District of Columbia)

Whatley, Joe R. Jr. (New York)

Wheeler, Carolyn L. (District of Columbia)

Wiggins, Audrey (District of Columbia)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

02-80008

Docket - Court of Appeals

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 18, 2002

March 18, 2002

Docket

04-80057

Docket - Court of Appeals

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

March 10, 2009

March 10, 2009

Docket

04-16688

Docket - Court of Appeals

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

April 26, 2010

April 26, 2010

Docket

04-16720

Docket (9th Circuit)

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Docket

3:01-cv-02252

Docket [PACER]

Nov. 16, 2016

Nov. 16, 2016

Docket
82

3:01-cv-02252

Complaint (Third Amended)

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

Complaint
599

3:01-cv-02252

Plaintiff's Motion For Class Certification

July 25, 2003

July 25, 2003

Pleading / Motion / Brief
634

3:01-cv-02252

Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Motion To Certify Class

222 F.R.D. 137

June 21, 2004

June 21, 2004

Order/Opinion
635

3:01-cv-02252

Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Plaintiffs' And Defendant's Motions To Strike Expert And Nonexpert Testimony

222 F.R.D. 189

June 21, 2004

June 21, 2004

Order/Opinion

04-16720

Principal Brief for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nov. 29, 2004

Nov. 29, 2004

Pleading / Motion / Brief

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5781336/dukes-v-wal-mart-stores-inc/

Last updated Aug. 8, 2022, 3:17 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT ; summons issued against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Filing fee $150.00 receipt number 3323026). Filed by pro se Betty Dukes. (slh, ) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

June 8, 2001

June 8, 2001

PACER
2

ADR SCHEDULING ORDER: Case Management Statement due by 10/2/2001. Case Management Conference set for 10/9/2001 at 02:00 PM. (slh) (Entered: 06/11/2001)

June 8, 2001

June 8, 2001

PACER
3

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Filed by Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson, Betty Dukes. (slh) (Entered: 06/20/2001)

June 19, 2001

June 19, 2001

PACER
4

Summons Returned Unexecuted as to defendant. (slh) (Entered: 06/21/2001)

June 20, 2001

June 20, 2001

PACER

Summons Issued

June 20, 2001

June 20, 2001

PACER

First Amended Summons Issued as to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (slh)

June 20, 2001

June 20, 2001

PACER
5

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Merit Bennett filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

July 2, 2001

July 2, 2001

PACER
6

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Stephen Tinkler filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

July 2, 2001

July 2, 2001

PACER
7

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Merit Bennett 5 (slh) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

July 3, 2001

July 3, 2001

PACER
8

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Stephen Tinkler 6 (slh) (Entered: 07/06/2001)

July 3, 2001

July 3, 2001

PACER
9

Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons and ADDENDUM to First Amended Complaint filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/11/2001)

July 6, 2001

July 6, 2001

PACER
10

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins that the time of defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to answer, move or otherwise plead in response to the first amended complaint shall be extended 30 days from 7/11/01 to 8/10/01.(tn) (Entered: 07/23/2001)

July 12, 2001

July 12, 2001

PACER
11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson re 9 Addendum to First Amended Complaint. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/26/2001)

July 17, 2001

July 17, 2001

PACER
12

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Deborah J. Vagins filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2001)

Aug. 3, 2001

Aug. 3, 2001

PACER
13

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Joseph M. Sellers filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 08/06/2001)

Aug. 3, 2001

Aug. 3, 2001

PACER
14

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff'sMotion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Deborah J. Vagins 12 (slh) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

Aug. 7, 2001

Aug. 7, 2001

PACER
15

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Joseph M. Sellers 13 (slh) (Entered: 08/10/2001)

Aug. 7, 2001

Aug. 7, 2001

PACER
16

MOTION to Dismiss, or in the alternative, Motion to Transfer Case with Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2001 09:30 AM. (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
17

DECLARATION of Catherine M. Dacre in Support Motion to Dismiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER

Received Order

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
18

DECLARATION of Darryl D. Duncan in Support Motion of Dismiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
19

DECLARATION of Allison d. Garrett in Support Motion to Dismiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
20

DECLARATION James T. Phelps Jr. in Support of Motion to Dismiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
21

DECLARATION of Dawn D. Lieck in Support of Motion to Dimsiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
22

DECLARATION of Paul W. Turner in Support of Motion to Dismiss 16 filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
23

Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER

Received Order re 16 Motion to Dismiss (version 1) submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, )

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER

Received Order re 16 Motion of Dismiss (version 2) submitted by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, )

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
24

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. re 16, 23, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 (slh, ) (Entered: 08/13/2001)

Aug. 10, 2001

Aug. 10, 2001

PACER
25

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Charles E. Tompkins filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

Aug. 15, 2001

Aug. 15, 2001

PACER
26

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiffs' Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Charles Tompkins 25 . (slh) (Entered: 08/21/2001)

Aug. 17, 2001

Aug. 17, 2001

PACER
27

ASSOCIATION of Counsel Shauna Marshall for plaintiffs. (slh, ) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

Sept. 4, 2001

Sept. 4, 2001

PACER
28

Memorandum in Opposition re 16 defendant's Motion to Dismiss filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

Sept. 4, 2001

Sept. 4, 2001

PACER
29

DECLARATION of Brad Seligma in Opposition to 16 Motion to Dismiss filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (Related document(s) 16 ) (slh) (Entered: 09/07/2001)

Sept. 4, 2001

Sept. 4, 2001

PACER
30

Reply to Opposition re 16 Motion to Dismiss filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

Sept. 12, 2001

Sept. 12, 2001

PACER
31

MINUTE ENTRY: Motion Hearing held on 10/2/2001 before Judge Jenkins. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer 16 is submitted. Court to issue Order. (Court Reporter Joan Columbini.) (slh) (Entered: 10/04/2001)

Oct. 2, 2001

Oct. 2, 2001

PACER
32

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins: Case Management Conference reset for 10/30/2001 at 02:00 PM. (slh) (Entered: 10/09/2001)

Oct. 3, 2001

Oct. 3, 2001

PACER
33

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

Oct. 23, 2001

Oct. 23, 2001

PACER
34

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 10/24/2001)

Oct. 23, 2001

Oct. 23, 2001

PACER
35

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins regarding preservation of documents. (slh) (Entered: 10/31/2001)

Oct. 25, 2001

Oct. 25, 2001

PACER
36

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART defendant's Motion to Dismiss or alternatively to Transfer Case 16 ; the Court elects to dismiss the improperly venued plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 21, allowing the named California class representatives to litigate this action in this forum; Status Conference set for 12/17/01 at 1:30 PM; Joint status conference statement due not later than 5 days prior to conference. (slh) (Entered: 12/04/2001)

Dec. 3, 2001

Dec. 3, 2001

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Dec. 3, 2001

Dec. 3, 2001

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/17/2001 01:30 PM. (slh)

Dec. 3, 2001

Dec. 3, 2001

PACER
37

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT filed by Betty Dukes, Micki Earwood, Kimberly Miller, Stephanie Odle, Sandra Stevenson, Patricia Surgeson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 12/13/2001)

Dec. 12, 2001

Dec. 12, 2001

PACER
38

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Lawrence C. DiNardo (fee pd) filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

Dec. 18, 2001

Dec. 18, 2001

PACER
39

MINUTE ENTRY: Case Management Conference held on 12/17/2001 before Judge Jenkins; Class certification motion will be heard on 3/25/03 at 9:30 AM; Further Status Conferences set for 3/5/2002 02:00 PM, 5/7/02 at 2:00 PM, and 8/6/02 at 2:00 PM; updated statements should be filed prior to each conference.(Court Reporter Sahar Demos.) (slh) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

Dec. 18, 2001

Dec. 18, 2001

PACER
40

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh) (Entered: 01/09/2002)

Dec. 26, 2001

Dec. 26, 2001

PACER
41

CASE MANAGEMENT SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins.(slh) (Entered: 01/10/2002)

Jan. 3, 2002

Jan. 3, 2002

PACER
42

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins granting certification of interlocutory appeal re the Order granting in part and denying in part defendant's Motion to Dismiss 36 pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 1292(b). (slh) (Entered: 01/10/2002)

Jan. 3, 2002

Jan. 3, 2002

PACER
43

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of Alison B. Marshall filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 01/15/2002)

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

PACER
44

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING defendant's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Alison B. Marshall 43 . (slh) (Entered: 01/15/2002)

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

PACER
45

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING defendant's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Lawrence C. DiNardo 38 . (slh) (Entered: 01/15/2002)

Jan. 4, 2002

Jan. 4, 2002

PACER
46

ANSWER to Second Amended Complaint by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (slh) (Entered: 02/01/2002)

Jan. 31, 2002

Jan. 31, 2002

PACER
47

STATUS REPORT by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 02/28/2002)

Feb. 26, 2002

Feb. 26, 2002

PACER
48

Minute Entry: Further Status Conference held on 3/5/2002 before Judge Martin J. Jenkins. Discovery ongoing with no problems. Continued for further Status Conference set for 5/7/2002 02:00 PM. (Court Reporter Debra Pas.) (gba) (Entered: 03/11/2002)

March 6, 2002

March 6, 2002

PACER
49

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins for substitution of attorney; Attorney Janine Simerly, Catherine M. Dacre, and Gilmore F. Diekmann terminated as counsel for defendant. (slh) (Entered: 04/16/2002)

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
50

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY by Judge Martin J. Jenkins adding Attorneys Katherine A. Alberts and John W. Edwards for Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (slh) (Entered: 04/19/2002)

April 17, 2002

April 17, 2002

PACER
51

MOTION for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2002 09:30 AM. (slh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 26, 2002

April 26, 2002

PACER

Received Document

April 26, 2002

April 26, 2002

PACER
52

DECLARATION in Support re 51 Motion to Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (Related document(s) 51 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 04/29/2002)

April 26, 2002

April 26, 2002

PACER

Received Document : Third Amended Complaint submitted by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, )

April 26, 2002

April 26, 2002

PACER
53

STATUS REPORT (JOINT) by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/01/2002)

April 30, 2002

April 30, 2002

PACER
54

Minute Entry: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/7/2002 before Judge Jenkins; Discovery is ongoing; Counsel anticipate filing a motion re: protective order on 5/14/02; hearing will be set for 6/11/02 at 9:30 AM; opposition due 5/21/02; reply due 5/24/02; the status conference date of 8/6/02 is reset to 7/30/02 upon stipulation of the parties. (Court Reporter - Kathy Wyatt.) (slh) (Entered: 05/09/2002)

May 8, 2002

May 8, 2002

PACER
55

MOTION for Protective Order re: document subpoenas to absent class members filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. Motion Hearing set for 6/11/2002 09:30 AM. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
56

DECLARATION in Support re 55 Motion for Protective Order (Brad Seligman) filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (Related document(s) 55 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 05/14/2002)

May 14, 2002

May 14, 2002

PACER
57

Memorandum in Opposition re 55 plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 21, 2002

May 21, 2002

PACER
58

Memorandum in Opposition re 51 plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 21, 2002

May 21, 2002

PACER
59

DECLARATION in Opposition re 55 plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (Steven T. Catlett) filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 55 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 05/22/2002)

May 21, 2002

May 21, 2002

PACER
60

Reply Memorandum to Motion re 51 Motion For Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
61

Reply Memorandum to Motion re 55 Motion for Protective Order filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
62

DECLARATION in Support re 55 Motion for Protective Order (Brad Seligman) filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (Related document(s) 55 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
63

DECLARATION in Support re 55 Motion for Protective Order (Debra Smith) filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (Related document(s) 55 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 05/29/2002)

May 28, 2002

May 28, 2002

PACER
64

STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISION pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3.d re 51 Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 06/18/2002)

June 17, 2002

June 17, 2002

PACER
65

Minute Entry: Motion Hearing held on 6/25/2002 before Judge Jenkins; that plaintiff's motion for leave to file third amended complaint 51 is submitted; that plaintiff's motion for protective order 55 is submitted; Status Conference set for 7/23/2002 02:00 PM; Court to issue Order. (Court Reporter - Joan Columbini.) (slh) (Entered: 06/26/2002)

June 25, 2002

June 25, 2002

PACER
66

TRANSCRIPT for dates 10/2/01 (C/R: Joan Marie Columbini). (slh, ) (Entered: 07/12/2002)

July 8, 2002

July 8, 2002

PACER
67

STATUS REPORT by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/17/2002)

July 16, 2002

July 16, 2002

PACER
68

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Julie Goldsmith filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/17/2002)

July 17, 2002

July 17, 2002

PACER
69

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Status Report filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

July 19, 2002

July 19, 2002

PACER
70

DECLARATION in Support re 69 Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Status Report (Steven T. Catlett) filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. (Related document(s) 69 ) (slh, ) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

July 19, 2002

July 19, 2002

PACER
71

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. re 69, 70 (slh, ) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

July 19, 2002

July 19, 2002

PACER
72

CLERK'S NOTICE: Case Management Conference reset for 8/13/2002 at 02:00 PM. (slh) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

July 19, 2002

July 19, 2002

PACER
73

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Julie Goldsmith 68 . (slh) (Entered: 07/24/2002)

July 22, 2002

July 22, 2002

PACER
74

Mail Returned from Post Office addressed to Merit Bennett. (slh, ) (Entered: 07/29/2002)

July 25, 2002

July 25, 2002

PACER
75

MOTION for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Christine E. Webber (fee status pd) filed by Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 08/15/2002)

Aug. 8, 2002

Aug. 8, 2002

PACER
76

Minute Entry: Further Case Management Conference held on 8/13/2002 before Judge Jenkins. Case continued to 9/4/02 at 2:30 PM for discovery conference call/status conference. (Court Reporter - NOT reported.) (slh) (Entered: 08/19/2002)

Aug. 13, 2002

Aug. 13, 2002

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings

Aug. 13, 2002

Aug. 13, 2002

PACER

Set/Reset Hearings: Discovery Conference call/Status Conference set for 9/4/2002 02:30 PM. (slh)

Aug. 13, 2002

Aug. 13, 2002

PACER
77

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Pro Hac Vice admission of attorney Christine E. Webber 75 . (slh) (Entered: 08/23/2002)

Aug. 19, 2002

Aug. 19, 2002

PACER
78

Minute Entry: Discovery Conference Telephone Call/Status Conference held on 9/4/2002 before Judge Jenkins; Status Conference set for 9/27/2002 02:30 PM. (Court Reporter - Debbie Pas.) (slh) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

Sept. 5, 2002

Sept. 5, 2002

PACER
79

ORDER OF RECUSAL by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte. (slh) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

Sept. 5, 2002

Sept. 5, 2002

PACER
80

STIPULATION AND ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins re: discovery dispute; see Order for specifcs. (slh) (Entered: 09/06/2002)

Sept. 5, 2002

Sept. 5, 2002

PACER
81

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins GRANTING plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 51 . (slh) (Entered: 09/10/2002)

Sept. 9, 2002

Sept. 9, 2002

PACER

Case Referred to Magistrate Judge for Discovery

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

PACER

CASE REFERRED to Magistrate Judge for Discovery Edward M. Chen. (wh, )

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

PACER
82

AMENDED COMPLAINT (THIRD) against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.. Filed by Edith Arana, Karen Williamson, Deborah Gunter, Christine Kwapnoski, Cleo Page, Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson. (slh, ) (Entered: 09/13/2002)

Sept. 12, 2002

Sept. 12, 2002

PACER
83

NOTICE OF REFERENCE AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen re: discovery procedures. (slh) (Entered: 09/19/2002)

Sept. 18, 2002

Sept. 18, 2002

PACER
84

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins: Status Conference reset for 10/11/2002 03:00 PM. (slh) (Entered: 10/08/2002)

Oct. 4, 2002

Oct. 4, 2002

PACER
85

ORDER by Judge Martin J. Jenkins DENYING plaintiff's request to expand the deposition time. (slh) (Entered: 10/08/2002)

Oct. 7, 2002

Oct. 7, 2002

PACER
86

ORDER Defendant's request that the Court certify its 9/09/2002 Order for interlocutory appeal is DENIED. Signed by Judge Martin J. Jenkins on 10/10/02. (vlh, ) (Entered: 10/16/2002)

Oct. 10, 2002

Oct. 10, 2002

PACER
88

Letter dated 10/3/02 from Brad Seligman in oppositon to defendant's request that the Court certify for interlocutory appeal its 9/9/02 Order. (slh, ) (Entered: 10/17/2002)

Oct. 10, 2002

Oct. 10, 2002

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

Private Employment Class Actions

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 8, 2001

Closing Date: 2016

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All women, from part-time hourly workers to salaried managers, whom Wal-Mart denied raises and promotions because of an alleged culture of gender discrimination.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Impact Fund

Public Counsel

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Bentonville), Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Retailer

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Issues

General:

Disparate Impact

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Demotion

Discharge / Constructive Discharge / Layoff

Discipline

Harassment / Hostile Work Environment

Other Conditions of Employment (including assignment, transfer, hours, working conditions, etc)

Pay / Benefits

Promotion

Seniority

Training

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination

Sex discrimination

Race:

American Indian/Alaskan Native

Asian/Pacific Islander

Black

White

Affected Gender:

Female