University of Michigan Law School
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. EE-KY-0030
Docket / Court 6:01-cv-00339-KKC ( E.D. Ky. )
State/Territory Kentucky
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
On August 24, 2001, the Louisville Area Office of the EEOC brought a suit 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 ... read more >
On August 24, 2001, the Louisville Area Office of the EEOC brought a suit 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 complaint alleges that in October 1998, a female employee of Wal-Martís retail store in London, Kentucky was denied a transfer to work in the DC 6097 location as a freezer department ďorder filler.Ē 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 (Judge Karen K. Caldwell) denied Wal-Martís motion for summary judgment on both grounds.

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-Martís 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. Furthermore Wal-Mart 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 (Judge Karen K. Caldwell) denied the EEOCís motion holding that Wal-Martís hiring policy was in compliance with the consent decree.

This case in ongoing and the EEOC has filed a motion for a fairness hearing.

Caitlin Howitt - 08/22/2011


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Discrimination Prohibition
Follow recruitment, hiring, or promotion protocols
Hire
Monitoring
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Reporting
Retaliation Prohibition
Utilize objective hiring/promotion criteria
Defendant-type
Retailer
Discrimination-area
Hiring
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ß 2000e
Defendant(s) Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Plaintiff Description EEOC on behalf of female applicants for positions at Kentucky WalMart stores.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Mixed
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
6:01-cv-00339-KKC (E.D. Ky.) 08/12/2011
EE-KY-0030-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 08/24/2001
EE-KY-0030-0010 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order 03/30/2006 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Compelling Production [in part] 01/04/2007 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Regarding Pending Discovery Issues 01/09/2007 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0007 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 01/18/2007 (2007 WL 6870565) (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0003 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order 07/31/2007 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0008 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Comprehensive Discovery Order and Status Report 08/14/2007 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0009 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [granting EEOC's motion] for a protective order 02/19/2008 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0004 PDF | Detail
Order [Re: motion for Protective Order by EEOC] 02/19/2008 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0005 PDF | Detail
Order Confirming Work Product Protection [Re:Motion to Compel] 03/06/2008 (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0006 PDF | Detail
Wal-Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment 07/15/2009
EE-KY-0030-0011 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief in Opposition to Wal-Mart's Motion for Summary Judgment 11/16/2009
EE-KY-0030-0012 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Wal-Mart's Reply in Support of Summary Judgment 11/16/2009
EE-KY-0030-0013 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order and Opinion [Denying Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment] 02/12/2010 (2010 WL 567316) (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0018 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Consent Decree 03/01/2010
EE-KY-0030-0014 PDF | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
EEOC's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Enforce Consent Decree 10/15/2010
EE-KY-0030-0015 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Wal-Mart's Response to EEOC's Motion to Enforce Consent Decree 11/08/2010
EE-KY-0030-0016 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
EEOC's Reply in Support of Motion to Enforce Consent Decree 11/29/2010
EE-KY-0030-0017 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion and Order [Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Enforce Consent Decree] 01/06/2011 (2011 WL 42997) (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0019 PDF | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Westlaw
Judges Caldwell, Karen K. (E.D. Ky.)
EE-KY-0030-0018 | EE-KY-0030-0019
Johnson, J. B. Jr. (E.D. Ky.) [Magistrate]
EE-KY-0030-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Edmonds, Nancy Dean (Indiana)
EE-KY-0030-0012 | EE-KY-0030-0014 | EE-KY-0030-0015 | EE-KY-0030-0017
Eisele, Michelle (Indiana)
EE-KY-0030-0012 | EE-KY-0030-0015 | EE-KY-0030-0017
Young, Laurie A (Indiana)
EE-KY-0030-0012 | EE-KY-0030-0015 | EE-KY-0030-0017
Defendant's Lawyers Anderson, Becky (Kentucky)
EE-KY-0030-0014
Henry, Michael J. (Kentucky)
EE-KY-0030-0016
Quesenberry, Kathryn A (Kentucky)
EE-KY-0030-0011 | EE-KY-0030-0013 | EE-KY-0030-0016
Roark, Erin M (Kentucky)
EE-KY-0030-0011
True, Sadhna G. (Kentucky)
EE-KY-0030-0016
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -