This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

The Supreme Court blocked the largest sex-discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history on Monday, siding with Wal-Mart and against up to 1.6 million female workers in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation's biggest companies.

The decision reverberated from the nation's capital to Utah and beyond.

The justices all agreed the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court also said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

"Because respondents provide no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy, we have concluded that they have not established the existence of any common question," Justice Antonin Scalia said in his majority opinion.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., Wal-Mart's lawyer, said the decision also would affect pending class-action claims against Costco and others. Companies as varied as the big Wall Street firm Goldman-Sachs & Co., electronics giant Toshiba America Inc., and Cigna Healthcare Inc. face class-action claims from women they employ.

"This is an extremely important victory not just for Wal-Mart, but for all companies that do business in the United States," Boutrous said.

Sharing his opinion was Bryan Benard, an attorney in the Salt Lake City office of Holland & Hart who represents employers.

"This represents a significant decision for large and nationwide employers," Benard said. "The Supreme Court seemed to indicate a nationwide class would be inappropriate where you have localized decision-makers implementing individual employment decisions.

"But it wouldn't prevent 10 or 20 or more local employees who are subject to the same localized management, from asserting a class action on a local basis," he added.

The ruling's importance was felt deeply by women's rights advocates.

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said "the court has told employers that they can rest easy, knowing that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their employees will be able to join together to secure their rights."

With 2.1 million workers in more than 8,000 stores worldwide (including more than 16,000 employees in Utah), Wal-Mart could have faced billions of dollars in damages if it had to answer claims by the huge group of women.

Now, the handful of employees who brought the case may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle. Two of the named plaintiffs, Christine Kwapnoski and Betty Dukes, vowed to continue their fight, even as they expressed disappointment about the ruling.

"All I have to say is when I go back to work tomorrow, I'm going to let them know we are still fighting," said Kwapnoski, an assistant manager at a Sam's Club in Concord, Calif. Both women spoke during a conference call with reporters.

The women's lawyers said they were considering filing thousands of discrimination claims against Wal-Mart, but they acknowledged the court had dealt a fatal blow to their initial plan.

Three Utah women had signed declarations of support for the class certification, alleging their hopes of advancement in Wal-Mart had been stymied by sexual discrimination.

None of the three — Diane Durfey of Utah County, Cecilia Harrison of Tooele or Jan Wolsleger of Toquerville — could be reached for comment Monday.

Utah AFL-CIO President Jim Judd had not had an opportunity Monday to read the Supreme Court decision. Although he objects overall to limitations on workers' rights to redress employment concerns, he was relieved at first glance that the ruling did not prohibit class-action cases altogether.

"It still would allow a class of employees at an individual store to sue," Judd said. "It all depends how small they limit a class to. The larger the class is certified at, the more resources you can bring to bear because the attorneys who take on these cases do it for a percentage of the cut."

The high court's majority agreed with Wal-Mart's argument that being forced to defend the treatment of female employees regardless of the jobs they hold or where they work is unfair.

Scalia said there needed to be common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at once." He said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, "that is entirely absent here."

Ginsburg's opinion was joined by the other women on the court, Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Stephen Breyer.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and other congressional Democrats criticized the ruling and called on Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act to reduce wage disparities between men and women.

"Today's ruling underscores the need to act boldly and strongly on behalf of women's rights," Pelosi said.

Business interests, including nearly two dozen large companies, lined up with Wal-Mart, while civil rights, women's and consumer groups sided with the female plaintiffs.

Both sides painted the case as extremely consequential. The business community said that a ruling for the women would lead to a flood of class-action lawsuits based on vague evidence. Supporters of the women suggested a decision in favor of Wal-Mart could remove a valuable weapon for fighting all sorts of discrimination.

Said Greenberger: "The women of Wal-Mart, together with women everywhere, will now face a far steeper road to challenge and correct pay and other forms of discrimination in the workplace."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce said the court had set a high bar in ruling that "mega-class actions such as this one are completely inconsistent with federal law."

The Wal-Mart lawsuit, citing what are now dated figures from 2001, said that women are grossly underrepresented among managers, holding just 14 percent of store manager positions compared with more than 80 percent of lower-ranking supervisory jobs that are paid by the hour. Wal-Mart responded that women in its retail stores made up two-thirds of all employees and two-thirds of all managers in 2001.

The company also has said its policies prohibit discrimination and that it has taken steps since the suit was filed to address problems, including posting job openings electronically.

Tribune reporter Mike Gorrell contributed to this story.