X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
It could be the biggest employment discrimination case ever. Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleges that the nation’s largest private employer denies equal pay and promotions to women. With more than 700,000 possible plaintiffs, and damages that could run into the billions, it’s a potential nightmare for the Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer. But behind the scenes, Wal-Mart’s defense team may have hit some bumps in the road. Even before a class certification hearing was held, two major law firms had exited the case. When the complaint was filed in San Francisco federal court in June 2001, Wal-Mart hired Seyfarth Shaw. Veteran employment lawyer Gilmore Diekmann, Jr., who works in the firm’s San Francisco office, headed the company’s defense. Soon after, Wal-Mart brought in Jones Day, which it selected as lead counsel after interviewing several firms. The team was led by Cleveland partner John Strauch, the coordinator of Jones Day’s litigation group. In April 2002 Seyfarth formally withdrew. Then, last December, Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker partner Nancy Abell took command of Wal-Mart’s defense. Four months later Jones Day filed a motion to withdraw, which the court granted. Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams says the company does not discuss its selection of counsel. Likewise, none of the defense attorneys would comment on the switches. Lead plaintiffs lawyer Brad Seligman claims these changes have helped his clients. Seligman, who heads a Berkeley foundation called The Impact Fund, notes that Paul, Hastings had the unenviable task of parachuting into a discovery process that was almost over. “They had enormous catch-up they had to do,” he says. Indeed, Paul, Hastings had less than a month to prepare for the depositions of some senior executives. “We were quite pleased with how the last set of depositions went,” Seligman says. “We don’t see it that way,” responds Wal-Mart spokeswoman Williams. Of course, none of this will make any difference if Wal-Mart can defeat class certification. At press time a hearing on the issue was set for September 24.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.