| Appendix A – Critical Thinking Applications
© 2013 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
backpay award which, while imprecise, was better than no remedy at all, according to the
court. The court also certified the entire class with regard to an Equal Pay Act remedy.
BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED, WAS WAL-MART GUILTY OF GENDER
DISCRIMINATION AS ALLEGED?
Important issue #1: The role of subjective decision-making.
Wal-Mart’s arguments: A key point in the plaintiffs’ case was that highly subjective decision–
making processes in pay and promotion decisions were susceptible to discrimination. Indeed,
Wal-Mart’s petition to appeal the class certification asserts that “District Courts within the Ninth
Circuit are divided” with regard to such decision-making processes and offers another case,
where certification of the class was denied. In that decision, the high degree of subjectivity was
Plaintiffs’ response: The plaintiffs response is that this district court has argued elsewhere that
local decision-making does not defeat an argument of commonality. Moreover, the plaintiffs
point out that Wal-Mart has a strong degree of centralization, which in turn creates a
Plaintiffs’ response. The plaintiffs cite a different case in the ninth circuit, which they assert
addressed aggregated statistical data. I found another case, in a different area of the country,
where the district court did accept (for class certification purposes) aggregated analyses (e.g.,
Warren v. Xerox, 2004) by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also contend that in a class certification
situation, the court’s role is not to make decisions as to which expert’s evidence is correct;
rather, that the purpose is to determine whether the plaintiff’s evidence is “sufficient.” Finally,