Family Dollar Stores, Inc. is facing heat from some 51 female managers that claim that the Dollar Store’s corporate headquarters created a system of compensation that caused female store managers to be paid less than males. The plaintiffs allege that they are aware of no other criteria that could have caused such disparate impact, other than gender bias, subjectivity, and stereotyping. The Dollar Store asked the U.S. District Court in North Carolina to dismiss the managers’ claims. Meanwhile, the female managers asked the District Court to certify their claims as a class action under Rule 23, arguing that all female managers have suffered a common wrong because of the Dollar Store’s unlawful corporate policy; or, alternatively, asked the court to grant them leave to amend their Complaint to add more detail before making its decision concerning certification and/or dismissal. The District Court denied both of plaintiffs’ motions, and dismissed the lawsuit based on its erroneous interpretation of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011). The female managers appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Fourth Circuit decided that the District Court had misinterpreted the law. The significant decision is Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., and should serve as a caution to businesses that believe only a written handbook can set its corporate policy.
As the Dollar Store learned, upper-level, top-management personnel may unknowingly be setting policies for the entire company just by virtue of exercising discretion concerning a particular matter, and this could lead to corporate vulnerability in the class action context. In order to proceed as a class action, plaintiffs must satisfy the “commonality requirement” under Rule 23(a). In the Wal-Mart decision, the Supreme Court held that “commonality” means that class members must have all suffered the “same injury” and there must be some “glue” holding the reasons behind each of their claims together. This “glue” might exist if: (1) the employer used a biased testing procedure that produces a common result; or (2) there is significant proof that an employer operated under a general policy of discrimination. In Wal-Mart, the Court determined that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement because there was no general policy of discrimination since, among other things, the corporate policy permitted lower-level employees to exercise discretion over employment matters.
Based on this, the District Court denied the Dollar Store plaintiffs’ request to amend their complaint, stating that the amended complaint would be futile since it pointed to subjective, individualized decisions which failed to satisfy the commonality requirements set forth in Wal-Mart. However, the Fourth Circuit disagreed, and determined that Wal-Mart did not set out a per se rule against class certification where subjective decision-making or discretion is alleged. Rather, litigants should differentiate between cases where lower-level employees are exercising discretion, which does not satisfy the commonality requirement, and cases in which upper-level management are exercising discretion. In Wal-Mart, local supervisors from individual stores were vested with almost absolute discretion over pay and promotion decisions, and this did not create a “corporate policy.” However, in this case, the amended complaint contained substantial allegations that would satisfy the commonality requirements because the plaintiffs alleged that high-level corporate decision-makers in the Dollar Store’s corporate headquarters were determining salary ranges. According to the Fourth Circuit, such discretion from high-level personnel may establish commonality by creating “corporate policy.” Thus, the Fourth Circuit directed the trial court to grant plaintiffs with leave to amend, and to revisit the certification question once the allegations in the amended complaint have been more fully developed. In light of this decision, business should likewise revisit their company policy and decision-making determinations.
Fill out the form and we’ll respond as soon as possible.
Posted on Google
AnonymousTrustindex verifies that the original source of the review is Google.
I was facing a charge of Reckless Driving for speeding on I66 at midnight. This is considered a Class 1 Misdemeanor in the state of Virginia. Having something like Reckless Driving on your record is on par with having a DUI. This charge also carries a chance for jail time (up to a year). I was incredibly scared because I had never faced such a charge. And looking into Virginia Law, my speed exceeded 90mph, which is quite serious. I retained Dave Albo to help me with this case. Since my record was clean, Dave had advised I do the following before my trial. * Take a DMV Driver's Improvement Course * Take a Behavior Modification Course * Do 100 hours of community service * Print my DMV Record one week before the trial On the day of my trial, Dave got my Reckless Driving charge REDUCED to a regular Speeding charge. This was the absolute best case scenario for me. No criminal record. No jail time. No suspension of license. I did receive 6 demerit points and had to pay a fine of $250 (plus court fees). But that's a slap on the wrist, compared to what I could have been facing. Thank you Dave Albo for helping me through this ordeal!Posted on Google
TomDave albo it's a fantastic lawyer. He has helped me twice now with great results both times with minor traffic tickets. I would recommend him to anybody including my family. He has great ethics and honesty which is what I look for in a lawyer .Posted on Google
kendall carpenterDave was my attorney recently for a car accident where I needed someone to represent me in court. After exchanging all necessary information he reassured me when the court date came that there wouldn’t be anything to worry about. On the day of court a couple problems arose and Dave was able to rectify them quickly, told me everything I need to say if needed and when it was all over he got my violation reduced significantly. I hope to never go to court again but if I do I will being calling Dave again.Posted on Google
Amanda StallardRetaining the services of Mr. Albo for traffic court was probably the best decision I made. He is very responsive to emails, knowledgeable, and punctual. He provided excellent advice that eased the panic of having to go to the court house and stand before a judge. I am very happy with the outcome of my visit to traffic court and highly recommend Dave Albo.Posted on Google
Mark WestMr Albo was very professional and I was pleased with the outcome.Posted on Google
MDavid was incredible to work with from clear communication and next steps. To showing up to traffic court early to walk over all steps, making case in court as experienced/intelligent/well spoken lawyer. Lastly, he even followed after case in writing to confirm the outcome outlining everything that happened in lamen terms (in my case the best outcome we could ask for). I’m so appreciative to David.Posted on Google
mitquinn88Absolutely top notch representation. Can't thank Dave enough for his knowledge and expertise.Posted on Google
G RThanks to Dave Albo for a fantastic job representing me and ensuring the best possible outcome for my case. I highly recommend him - you will be in good hands for sure. From start to finish he provided expert counsel and kept me well informed. He simply could not have done a better job.Posted on Google
Hope CarriganI am THRILLED with the outcome of my case, all thanks to Attorney Albo's superb expertise, excellent advice & sharp negotiating skills! I am extremely relieved and grateful; I highly recommend retaining his services. Well beyond worth it!!Posted on Google
Doug DamronDave did a great job representing me for my traffic court infraction! I wanted the best and his name came up as I searched for an attorney. Highly recommend him on all levels including a successful outcome to my case.
