The WSJ's law blog has an update on the discrimination suit in which a 54-year-old Wal-Mart employee from California named Betty Dukes alleged in a discrimination claim that she was denied the training needed to obtain a higher-paying job because of her sex.
The bad news, from where we sit: Neither side emerged as the clear winner during Tuesday’s oral arguments out in San Francisco over class-certification in the proposed Wal-Mart sex-discrimination class-action. (We like finality.) The silver lining: the suspense in the case will continue to build (We like suspense.)
Squaring off on Tuesday: Gibson, Dunn’s Ted Boutrous, who argued for the company, and Brad Seligman of the Impact Fund, who argued for the plaintiffs. (After a three-judge panel ruled for Seligman’s side back in early 2007, we anointed him lawyer of the day. Click here for that post.) On Tuesday’s argument, click here for the Recorder article. Click here for a “curtain-raiser” (as we say in the biz) from Monday’s Journal.
This case could certainly provide a major blow to the retail giant and its discriminatory practices.