WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. WRIGHT 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002) CASE BRIEF

WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. WRIGHT

774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wal-Mart (D) appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeals that affirmed a trial court judgment on jury verdict in favor of Wright (P) in her slip and fall action for negligence.

FACTS: P sued for injuries she sustained when she slipped on a puddle of water at the 'Outdoor Lawn and Garden Corral' of D's store. P alleged D was negligent in the maintenance, care and inspection of the premises, and D asserted contributory negligence. D's employee documents assembled as a 'Store Manual' were admitted into evidence at the jury trial that followed. There was considerable confusion and testimony over whether that manual applied to the outdoor lawn and garden area. Janice Walker, a former D employee who was reporting for work when she witnessed P's fall, testified that she would sweep or 'squeegee' water in the corral on an 'as required' basis, usually after a rainfall or plant watering. Walker also testified that she was a member of the store's safety team and that the puddle where Wright fell was of the type Walker would normally sweep or squeegee. P wanted D's manual to establish the duty of care. D objected on the ground that 'you can set standards for yourself that exceed ordinary care and the fact that you've done that shouldn't be used as evidence tending to show the degree that you believe is ordinary. The court overruled the objection and P's tendered instruction became Final Instruction 17. D was found liable and assessed P's total damages at $600,000, reduced to $420,000 by 30% comparative fault attributed to P. P appealed contending that the second paragraph of Final Instruction 17 was an improper statement of law that incorrectly altered the standard of care from an objective one to a subjective one. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner

WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES 131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011) CASE BRIEF

WAL-MART STORES, INC. V. DUKES

131 S.Ct. 2541 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This was a dispute over whether the certification of the plaintiff class was consistent with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2).

FACTS: Wal-Mart (D) operates approximately 3,400 stores and employs more than one million people. Local store managers may increase the wages of hourly employees (within limits) with only limited corporate oversight. As for salaried employees, such as store managers and their deputies, higher corporate authorities have discretion to set their pay within pre-established ranges. D permits store managers to apply their own subjective criteria when selecting candidates as 'support managers,' which is the first step on the path to management. Admission to management training requires that a candidate meet certain objective criteria, including an above-average performance rating, at least one year's tenure in the applicant's current position, and a willingness to relocate. Regional and district managers have discretion to use their own judgment when selecting candidates for management training. Dukes (Ps) represent the 1.5 million members of the certified class, who allege that the company discriminated against them on the basis of their sex by denying them equal pay or promotions, in violation of Title VII. Ps claim that their local managers' discretion over pay and promotions is exercised disproportionately in favor of men, leading to an unlawful disparate impact on female employees. Ps claim that the discrimination to which they have been subjected is common to all D's female employees. Ps claim that strong and uniform 'corporate culture' permits bias against women to infect, perhaps subconsciously, the discretionary decisionmaking of each one of D's thousands of managers-thereby making every woman at the company the victim of one common discriminatory practice. Ds moved the District Court to certify the class consisting of '`all women employed at any D domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who have been or may be subjected to Wal-Mart's challenged pay and management track promotions policies and practices. Ps relied chiefly on three forms of proof: statistical evidence about pay and promotion disparities between men and women at the company, anecdotal reports of discrimination from about 120 of Wal-Mart's female employees, and the testimony of a sociologist, Dr. William Bielby, who conducted a 'social framework analysis' of D's 'culture' and personnel practices, and concluded that the company was 'vulnerable' to gender discrimination. The District Court granted Ps' motion and certified their proposed class. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's certification order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner