close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Fenwick & West Employment Brief Special Bulletin - June 2011

Wal-Mart Defeats Largest Class Action for Gender Discrimination; All Employers Benefit from Reduced Risk of Class Claims Arising Out of Subjective Decisions by Managers

Wal-Mart Defeats Largest Class Action for Gender Discrimination; All Employers Benefit from Reduced Risk of Class Claims Arising Out of Subjective Decisions by Managers

In a far-reaching and favorable decision for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes barred the "most expansive class action ever" as lacking evidence of the "common policy of discrimination" necessary for class treatment. Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart greeter, and two other female employees sued Wal-Mart for gender discrimination on behalf of themselves and up to 1.5 million current and former female employees of the nation's largest private employer. The purported class of current and former employees worked in stores across the country and were allegedly subjected to discrimination in pay and promotional opportunities.

With respect to pay and promotion decisions, Wal-Mart largely operates in a decentralized fashion. Decisions to increase the pay of hourly employees are generally committed to the local store manager's broad discretion, which is exercised in a largely subjective manner. Decisions to promote employees to management and/or to select them for the management training programs were similarly left to the discretion of local store, regional and district managers applying their own best judgment. Plaintiffs did not allege any express corporate policy of discrimination. Indeed, Wal-Mart policy expressly prohibited discrimination on the basis of gender, and imposed penalties for any proven violation. Rather, plaintiffs asserted that Wal-Mart fostered an informal yet strong and uniform "corporate culture" of bias against women by allowing individual managers to use their subjective judgment in making pay and promotion decisions. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs that, by allowing its managers to use their subjective judgment, Wal-Mart exhibited a common policy of discrimination against women. The Ninth Circuit therefore allowed the class action to proceed to trial, specifically by a special master who would 1) hold several mini-trials of a randomly selected number of claims, and then 2) extrapolate the results of these mini-trials to the entire class in fashioning a class-wide remedy.

Rejecting the conclusion that Wal-Mart operated under a common policy of bias against women, the Supreme Court explained that in order to sue over "literally millions of employment decisions at once," there must be "some glue holding" the reasons for those decisions together. By way of example, the court opined that significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination would satisfy this commonality requirement. Class treatment could be justified if discrimination manifested itself through, for e.g., entirely subjective decision-making processes. However, Wal-Mart's so-called policy of allowing discretion by local managers over pay and promotion decisions is a "very common and presumptively reasonable way of doing business" that, in and of itself, raises no inference of discriminatory conduct. Rather, to support class treatment, plaintiffs must offer significant proof that an "employer's undisciplined system of subjective decision making [had the] same effects as a system pervaded by impermissible intentional discrimination."

The Court further opined that plaintiffs had "not identified a common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the entire company," and it rejected the conclusory and unsupported assertions of a social scientist that Wal-Mart had a "strong corporate culture" that made it "vulnerable" to gender bias. The Court also discounted statistical disparities in pay at a regional and national level as failing to raise any inference of discrimination, and it rejected the affidavits of 120 employees (who described discriminatory comments and actions by managers) as a meaningless attempt to establish a general policy of discrimination. Rather, the Court concluded that plaintiffs showed they had "little in common but their sex and this lawsuit," noting that it was impermissible to impose mini-trials of a random sampling of claims and then to apply the results to the entire class.

The Court's holding could foreclose class actions like the one litigated in Velez v. Novartis, in which a class of about 6,000 current and former female sales representatives obtained a $250 million punitive damages award at trial arising out of Novartis' alleged use of subjective factors in making compensation and promotion decisions (Fenwick Employment Brief, June 9, 2010). Novartis settled the case after trial for $175 million (FEB, January 7, 2011). Instead, to the benefit of employers both large and small, plaintiffs may now bring class actions arising out of the use of subjective factors in making employment decisions only where they can establish by significant proof that the company operated under a companywide policy of discrimination. This may be difficult if not impossible to prove where the employer has an express policy of nondiscrimination that is enforced when violations occur.

However, this is also not to say that subjective employment decisions are now immune from legal challenge. Denials of pay increases and promotions based on subjective judgment that are contrary to objective facts about a female employee's good performance and superior qualifications may expose the employer, even in a single-employee case, to significant liability for discrimination. Further, the class action remedy remains available where the employee is able to show a companywide policy, for instance, in using a test for hiring or promotion that is shown to have an adverse impact on women. Employers should therefore continue to evaluate their policies and procedures for discriminatory application and impact.

The plaintiffs' bar will certainly look for ways to minimize the impact of this ruling by pursing class actions with more narrow classes of plaintiffs and/or flooding the court system with individual claims. And lawmakers may even seek to undo the ruling through federal legislation. In the meantime, this case is a clear victory for employers.

 


This Fenwick Employment Brief is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as advertising, solicitation, legal advice or opinion. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel. ©2012 Fenwick & West LLP. All rights reserved.​​​