Ladik v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
291 F.R.D. 263
W.D. Wis.2013Background
- This case is a Title VII lawsuit by Wisconsin/Midwest Region 14 Walmart employees against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. accusing region-wide pay and promotion discrimination and seeking class treatment.
- Plaintiffs seek to represent a region-wide class limited to Region 14 (WI, IL, IN, MI) since Dec 26, 1998 for denials of promotion or pay disparities.
- Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the class allegations arguing statute of limitations tolling issues and absence of common questions of law or fact under Rule 23; alternatively, venue/exhaustion issues.
- Court held limitations period does not bar class claims but denied class certification for lack of a common question of law or fact per Dukes and related standards.
- Court did not need to consider exhaustion/venue arguments due to the lack of common questions, and denied motions to take judicial notice as unnecessary.
- Despite the serious allegations of discrimination, the court emphasized the standard from Dukes requiring a common, classwide question that can resolve the outcome for all class members.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tolling under American Pipe applies to the proposed class | Ladik argues tolling extends to all potential class members | Wal-Mart argues tolling does not apply to a subsequent class action | Tolling does not bar class claims; limitations not applied to defeat class action |
| Whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(a)(2) commonality | Ladik asserts common questions about region-wide discriminatory practices | Wal-Mart contends no single common practice or policy ties region-wide decisions | Class certification denied for lack of a common contentional question capable of class-wide resolution |
| Whether the plaintiff class could be certified despite Dukes decisions | Ladik claims regional focus and curated issues distinguishable from Dukes | Wal-Mart argues distinctions fail to create a common question | No; Dukes controls; no cohesive common practice identified; certification denied; discussion of exhaustion/venue unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974) (tolls for all class members who intervene timely when class fails)
- Crown, Cork & Seal Co., Inc. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345 (1983) (extends tolling to individuals filing their own suits; concerns about abuse; class actions notify defendant of claims)
- Sawyer v. Atlas Heating and Sheet Metal Works, Inc., 642 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2011) (issue preclusion considerations; tolling not dispositive; preclusive effects analyzed separately)
- Gomez v. St. Vincent Health, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 710 (S.D. Ind. 2008) (tolling rationale applicable to class actions and individual suits; efficiency concerns)
- Hemenway v. Peabody Coal Co., 159 F.3d 255 (7th Cir. 1998) (tolling resolved upon timely initial filing; discovery later governs merit)
- McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 489 (7th Cir. 2012) (company-wide policies vs. discretionary local decisions; class action scope distinctions)
- Bolden v. Walsh Construction Co., 688 F.3d 893 (7th Cir. 2012) (Dukes-like discretionary decisions at multiple sites; certification denied for lack of common policy)