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

6:01-cv-00339 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky

Filed Date: Sept. 1, 2001

Closed Date: 2015

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On August 24, 2001, the Louisville Area Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division, alleging disparate treatment of female employees, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and seeking relief for a class of similarly situated female applicants who had been adversely affected. Specifically, Pla…

On August 24, 2001, the Louisville Area Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, London Division, alleging disparate treatment of female employees, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and seeking relief for a class of similarly situated female applicants who had been adversely affected. Specifically, Plaintiff EEOC claimed that Wal-Mart had failed to hire a specific female applicant as well as others in the class into vacant positions within its London, Kentucky facility. Plaintiff asked the court for a remedy consisting of injunctive and monetary relief for the class. The case was assigned to Judge Karen Caldwell.

The complaint alleges that in October 1998, a female employee of Wal-Mart's retail store in London, Kentucky was denied a transfer to work in the DC 6097 location as a freezer department "order filler." She filed a charge with the EEOC asserting that Wal-Mart discriminated against her because of her gender when her transfer application was denied. The EEOC notified Wal-Mart of the charge, conducted an investigation, and determined that evidence supported Smith's allegations and that there was evidence that a class of women were not hired as order fillers because of their gender.

On July 15, 2009, Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment claiming that the EEOC had not provided sufficient evidence to establish its prima facie case of discrimination, and that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear part of the case. On February 12, 2010, the court denied Wal-Mart's motion for summary judgment on both grounds. 2010 WL 567316.

On March 1, 2010 the parties entered into a consent decree. The terms of the consent decree were that Wal-Mart would be enjoined from discriminating against females in its hiring of order-filler positions, and that Wal-Mart would not retaliate in hiring or any other manner against those applicants or employees that had made a charge against Wal-Mart under Title VII. Furthermore, the consent decree required that Wal-Mart would retain all records of applications and employment, post notices of the non-discrimination policy at each of its facilities in Kentucky, provide training on what constitutes an unlawful employment practice under Title VII, and attempt to recruit female employees for order-filler employment. The consent decree also required Wal-Mart to hire a certain number of order-filler positions from a list of class members provided by the EEOC. Finally the consent decree required that Wal-Mart pay $11,700,000 in monetary relief to the class.

On October 15, 2010, the EEOC filed a motion to enforce the terms of the consent decree claiming that Wal-Mart had violated the decree by failing to instate the listed class-members and instead requiring them to apply for the positions as outside applicants would. Furthermore, the EEOC claimed that Wal-Mart had instated a physical abilities test that had not been discussed as part of the consent decree and that none of the more than 90 class members from the list who had applied for positions had been offered a position by Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart's response to this motion claimed that they had made diligent efforts to offer these positions to the class-members on the list but that most had either turned the position down or not met the qualification requirements for the position. Wal-Mart also argued that the plain language of the consent decree allowed for those applicants of the class members list to be subjected to the same qualification standards as outside applicants. On January 6, 2011, the court denied the EEOC's motion, holding that Wal-Mart's hiring policy was in compliance with the consent decree. 2011 WL 42997.

On March 7, 2011, the EEOC moved for a fairness hearing for class members (and people who wanted but did not have class status) to air their concerns before damages were distributed. The EEOC filed around 100 objections from people who were dissatisfied with the allocation of recovery under the consent decree. In preparation for the hearing, the parties conferred, and several people were found to be entitled to more money due to an administrative error made by Wal-Mart. On August 25, 2011, the parties jointly moved to modify the consent decree, with Wal-Mart agreeing to pay $120,000 more in order to cover the revised settlement payments.The fairness hearing took place on October 25, 2011. On December 11, 2011, the court ordered that the settlement money be distributed. 2011 WL 6400160.

The court retained jurisdiction for five years after entry of the consent decree, and the docket shows no activity during that period. Presumably, the case closed in March 2015.

Summary Authors

Caitlin Howitt (8/22/2011)

Rebecca Strauss (6/25/2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4823591/parties/eeoc-v-wal-mart-stores-inc/


Judge(s)

Caldwell, Karen K. (Kentucky)

Johnson, J. B. Jr. (Kentucky)

Wier, Robert Earl (Kentucky)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Brown, Kenneth W. (Kentucky)

Edmonds, Nancy Dean (Indiana)

Eisele, Michelle (Indiana)

Farnsworth, Jo Ann (Indiana)

Gibbs, Lauren (Michigan)

Lybolt, Robin M. (Indiana)

Maple, Johanna Philhower (Indiana)

Judge(s)

Caldwell, Karen K. (Kentucky)

Johnson, J. B. Jr. (Kentucky)

Wier, Robert Earl (Kentucky)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Brown, Kenneth W. (Kentucky)

Edmonds, Nancy Dean (Indiana)

Eisele, Michelle (Indiana)

Farnsworth, Jo Ann (Indiana)

Gibbs, Lauren (Michigan)

Lybolt, Robin M. (Indiana)

Maple, Johanna Philhower (Indiana)

McFerren, Aimee Lynn (Kentucky)

Reams, Gwendolyn Young (District of Columbia)

Shelly, Jan (Missouri)

Simpson, Bobby C. (Kentucky)

Young, Laurie A (Indiana)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Anderson, Becky (Kentucky)

Cook, Victoria L. (California)

Donohue, Joseph P. (Kentucky)

Gatton, Puja Gakhar (Kentucky)

Henry, Michael J. (Kentucky)

Hyland, Wendy Carole (Kentucky)

Prizant, Loren Teller (Kentucky)

Quesenberry, Kathryn A (Kentucky)

Roark, Erin M (Kentucky)

Rosenthal, Lee A. (Kentucky)

Srinivasan, Kalpana (California)

True, Sadhna G. (Kentucky)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Peabody, Amy O'Nan (Kentucky)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

6:01-cv-00339

Docket (PACER)

Feb. 23, 2012

Feb. 23, 2012

Docket
1

6:01-cv-00339

Complaint

Aug. 24, 2001

Aug. 24, 2001

Complaint
82

6:01-cv-00339

Opinion and Order

March 30, 2006

March 30, 2006

Order/Opinion
123

6:01-cv-00339

Order Compelling Production [in part]

Jan. 4, 2007

Jan. 4, 2007

Order/Opinion
126

6:01-cv-00339

Order Regarding Pending Discovery Issues

Jan. 9, 2007

Jan. 9, 2007

Order/Opinion
129

6:01-cv-00339

Order

2007 WL 6870565

Jan. 18, 2007

Jan. 18, 2007

Order/Opinion
156

6:01-cv-00339

Order

July 31, 2007

July 31, 2007

Order/Opinion
163

6:01-cv-00339

Comprehensive Discovery Order and Status Report

Aug. 14, 2007

Aug. 14, 2007

Order/Opinion
210

6:01-cv-00339

Order [Re: motion for Protective Order by EEOC]

Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Order/Opinion
209

6:01-cv-00339

Order [granting EEOC's motion] for a protective order

EEOC v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4823591/eeoc-v-wal-mart-stores-inc/

Last updated Aug. 9, 2022, 3:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
417

OPINION & ORDER: 1) The Court ADOPTS the January 18, 2007 Order of the Magistrate Judge DE 129 in its entirety and DENIES the EEOC's objection to it DE 1231 ; 2) The Magistrate Judge's November 13, 2008 Recommended Disposition DE 296 i s adopted in its entirety as the opinion of this Court with the following clarification. The portion of the Martel report that SHALL BE STRICKEN consists of: The second paragraph on page 2 of the Martell report; pages 24-32, beginning with the statem ent on page 24, "Ms Combs Opines that There is No Gender Bias in Hiring Decisions At Wal-Mart DC 6097" until the Conclusions section on page 32; and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Conclusions on page 33; 3) Wal-Mart's Motion to St rike DE 274 is GRANTED; 4) The Magistrate Judge's January 23, 2009 Recommended Disposition DE 315 is ADOPTED in its entirety as the opinion of this Court and portions of the Freeman report SHALL BE STRICKEN as indicated by the Magistrate Judge in the attachment to his Recommended Disposition. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 8/14/2009.(RC)cc: COR

Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

RECAP
523

OPINION & ORDER: 1) Wal-Mart's Motion to Extend Due Date to File Daubert Motion Directed to EEOC Expert Burt S. Barnow (DE 358 ) is DENIED; 2) Wal-Mart's Motion to Strike Portions of Barnow's Rebuttal Report (DE 372 ) and Motion for 25 Class Member Depositions (DE 356 ) SHALL BE HEARD during the four days of Daubert hearings set to begin January 12, 2010 at 9:00 a.m.; 3) Wal-Mart's Motion for Leave to File Memorandum in Excess of 15 Pages (DE 405 ) is GRANTED and the Cler k of the Court is DIRECTED to file the tendered reply memorandum into the record; 4) Wal-Mart's Motion for Leave to Supplement Motion to Exclude Barnow (DE 429 ) and the EEOC's Motion for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Barnow's Rebuttal (DE 406 ) are DENIED; and 5) the EEOC's Motion for Sanctions (DE 421 ) is DENIED. Motions terminated: 421 MOTION for Sanctions by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Equal Emp loyment Opportunity Commission, 358 MOTION for Extension of Time to File by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 429 MOTION for Leave by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 406 MOTION for Leave to File by Equ al Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 405 MOTION for Leave to File by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Motion Hearing set for 1/12/2010 @ 09:00 AM in LEXINGTON before Judge Karen K. Caldwell.) Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 1/8/2010.(RBB)cc: COR Modified on 1/8/2010 to state (Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.) (RBB).

Jan. 8, 2010

Jan. 8, 2010

RECAP
641

OPINION & ORDER, Motions terminated: 1) Wal-Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment (DE 409 ) is DENIED; 2) the EEOCs Motion to Exclude Certain Evidence Improperly offered by Wal-Mart in Support of Summary Judgment (DE 420 ) is DENIED. Any objectio ns to the evidence Wal-Mart has relied on in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment should have been made in the EEOCs 75-page response brief. Further, the Court has not relied on the DVD at issue in ruling on the Motion for Summary Judgment. Lik ewise, many of the allegedly unsupported facts to which the EEOC objects have no bearing on the Court's finding on summary judgment. Finally, when either party has asserted that any material facts are "undisputed", "admitted" "conceded" etc., the Court has not accepted any such assertions without citation and has reviewed the citation when given to determine whether the record has been accurately characterized; and 3) Wal-Mart's Motion to File Sur-Reply (DE 433 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/12/2010.(Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.)(RBB)cc: COR

Feb. 12, 2010

Feb. 12, 2010

RECAP
642

OPINION & ORDER: Court hereby ORDERS that Wal-Mart's Motion to Exclude theProposed Testimony of EEOC Expert Burt S. Barnow (DE 360 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/12/2010.(RBB)cc: COR

Feb. 12, 2010

Feb. 12, 2010

RECAP
647

OPINION & ORDER: Court hereby ORDERS as follows: 1) The EEOC's Motion to Exclude Freeman's Testimony (DE 344 ) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is GRANTED as to Freeman's testimony regarding differencesbetween Dr. Ima m's database and database upon which Dr. Barnow relied and Freeman's testimony on this issue is EXCLUDED. The motion is otherwise DENIED; and 2) Wal-Mart's Motion To Strike Portions of Dr. Barnow's Rebuttal (DE 372 ) and Wal-Mart 's Motion for 25 Class Member Depositions if Rebuttal Report not Stricken (DE 356 ) are DENIED. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/16/2010.(RBB)cc: COR Modified on 2/16/2010 to add text: (Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.)(RBB)

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

RECAP
648

OPINION & ORDER: 1) Wal-Mart's Motion to Exclude the Proposed Testimony of EEOC Expert William T. Bielby (DE 345 ) is GRANTED; and 2) Because Wal-Mart retained P. Richard Jeanneret to respond to Dr. Bielby, Jeanneret's testimonyis now unne cessary. Accordingly, the EEOC's Motion to Exclude Jeanneret's testimony (DE 342 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/16/2010. (Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.)(RBB)cc: COR

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

RECAP
650

OPINION & ORDER: 1) the EEOC's Motion to Exclude the Testimony of Wal-Mart Expert George Barrett (DE 341 ) is GRANTED; and 2) Because the EEOC retained Kenneth R. Troske to respond to Barrett, Troske's testimony is now unnecessary. Accordingly, Wal-Marts Motion to Exclude Troske's testimony (DE 346 ) is DENIED as moot. (Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.) Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/16/2010.(RBB)cc: COR

Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

RECAP
653

OPINION & ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Wal-Mart's Motion in Limine to Exclude Evidence of Two Databases Created by Wal-Mart's Counsel (DE 507 ) and Wal-Mart's Objection to Plf's Exhibit 132 Barnow's Rebuttal Rep ort (DE 469 ). Wal-Mart moves to exclude evidence of two databases that were created by Wal-Marts counsel. This motion (DE 507 ) is GRANTED. The databases were not created for statistical analysis. They were created solely to catalog applications s ubmitted by Wal-Mart during discovery. The party that produced the databases Wal-Mart argues they are unreliable and full of errors. This is the sole evidence before the Court regarding the reliability of the databases. Wal-Mart's statistical ex pert did not rely on either database in formulating his opinions. Further, the Court has no evidence before it regarding how these databases were constructed. Thus, the Court will exclude any evidence of the databases and any opinion relying on them. As to Wal-Mart's objection to Barnows Rebuttal Report (DE 469 ), the substance of this motion has been addressed in the Courts ruling on Wal-Mart's Motion to Strike the rebuttal report and with the ruling above. Accordingly, this motion ( DE 469 ) is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/18/2010. (Document scanned for immediate distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.)(RBB)cc: COR Modified on 2/18/2010 to create docket relations ship to 469 OBJECTIONS (Bundy, Renee).

Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

RECAP
657

OPINION AND ORDER: denying 495 Motion in Limine; denying 503 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 2/18/2010. (JMB)cc: COR Modified on 2/18/2010 to add "Opinion"(JMB).

Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

RECAP
676

OPINION & ORDER: Court hereby ORDERS that Wal-Mart's Motion to Enforce ConsentDecree (DE 670 ) is DENIED. Motions terminated: 670 MOTION for Order to Enforce Consent Decree by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 1/6/2011. (Document scanned for distribution to parties per Chamber's instructions.)(RBB)cc: COR

Jan. 6, 2011

Jan. 6, 2011

RECAP
732

OPINION AND ORDER: 1) the EEOC's Motion for Entry of Final Notice of Distribution 728 is GRANTED; 2) The Settlement Fund SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED as provided in the Recommended Award Amounts attached as Exhibit 4 to the EEOC's motion 728 ; 3 ) Any amount remaining in the fund SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED pro rata to the class members receiving a distribution from the Settlement Fund as provided in the Recommended Award Amounts attached as Exhibit 4 to the EEOC's motion; 4) The EEOC SHALL cause this Opinion and Order to be mailed to all class members; and 5) This Order is Final and Appealable.. Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 12/20/2011. (JMB)cc: COR

Dec. 20, 2011

Dec. 20, 2011

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: Kentucky

Case Type(s):

Equal Employment

Special Collection(s):

EEOC Study — in sample

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 1, 2001

Closing Date: 2015

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

EEOC on behalf of female applicants for positions at Kentucky WalMart stores.

Plaintiff Type(s):

EEOC Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

EEOC

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (London, KY), 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)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Mixed

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Damages

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 11,700,000

Order Duration: 2010 - 2015

Content of Injunction:

Reporting

Required disclosure

Retaliation Prohibition

Training

Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols

Hire

Monitoring

Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law

Provide antidiscrimination training

Recordkeeping

Issues

General:

Disparate Treatment

Pattern or Practice

Record-keeping

Retaliation

Discrimination-area:

Hiring

Discrimination-basis:

Sex discrimination

Affected Gender:

Female

EEOC-centric:

Direct Suit on Merits