Jump To Navigation

Publications

Third: Turn Your Subjective Employment Decisions
into Objective Employment Decisions

Now that it has happened to Wal-Mart and Morgan Stanley, it could happen to you.

As the media widely reported, in June, a federal district court in San Francisco allowed a class action involving 1.5 million Wal-Mart employees to proceed toward trial – by far the largest class action ever permitted in an employment discrimination case. But that is not the whole story. What is just as interesting about the case is the legal theory on which Wal-Mart was sued.

Boiled down to its essence, the Wal-Mart employees claim that Wal-Mart institutionalized a policy of subjective decision-making respecting basic employment decisions, like raises and promotions. The court found that this policy, especially when combined with evidence of a corporate culture that included gender stereotyping, could lead to widespread gender-based discrimination. Because this could adversely affect virtually all of Wal-Mart’s female employees, the court ruled that the case could proceed in a class action format.

What does that mean in practice? The Wal-Mart decision was not a ruling on the merits. Whether Wal-Mart did anything wrong has not yet been decided. But by allowing the case to proceed as a class action, the court dramatically multiplied Wal-Mart’s risk and, therefore, the plaintiffs’ settlement leverage. When an employer faces a claim by one employee, or even a few employees, it can defend and risk defeat since the worst case scenario is not life-threatening. But when that claim is, effectively converted into a claim by 50% or more of the company’s employees, can the company afford to risk a trial?

Case in point: a few weeks ago, even before the Wal-Mart case publicized and implicitly endorsed this strategy, the EEOC announced that Morgan Stanley had agreed to pay a $54 million settlement in a gender discrimination class action which, up to that point, Morgan Stanley had vowed to vigorously defend. Many analysts have observed that Morgan Stanley settled because the risk of proceeding to trial in a class action of this nature would have involved facing a potential judgment in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Perhaps the odds favored Morgan Stanley at trial, but could it afford to take the risk?

The most effective way to prevent these kinds of claims is the following:

  1. Establish procedures, and implement training, which ensure that employment decisions are, to the extent possible, made on the basis of merit and other objective criteria, and not purely on the basis of a supervisor’s subjective preferences. Subjective judgments will obviously come into play, but in most instances there is at least some objective basis for choosing one employee over another for a raise or a promotion -- one employee worked more quickly than another, made less mistakes than another, and so on. Make sure these factors get considered in the right way;

  2. Establish procedures, and implement training, which ensures that the decision-makers create the kind of documentation that proves that there was a sound, non-discriminatory basis for their employment decisions. Formal employee evaluation forms – honestly and carefully completed – are always a key. If a minority employee, for instance, claims that someone else got the promotion even though he or she was the better performer, how will you prove otherwise? Think about that, and make sure your decision-makers know what to document, and how to document it;
  3. Periodically sample what’s happening in your company. Are the raise and promotion numbers skewed to the point where an unbiased observer would be moved to ask why minorities are not advancing in your company?

There is nothing new in this advice. For instance, take a look at the Avoiding Lawsuits issues from January 2004, and September 2002. But what has changed is the urgency with which companies need to implement this advice: it is no exaggeration to state that a company which has, through inaction, left itself open to a class action of this nature has acted irresponsibly towards its owners. The stakes are too high to cavalierly run these risks.

As always, let us know if we can help.

Counsel Consulting Group LLC helps companies throughout the United States avoid employment and HR-related claims and liabilities. CCG assesses existing policies, procedures and problem areas; it provides customized liability-avoidance training to managers and executives; and it designs and implements business techniques that reduce employment liability risks on a long term basis. CCG also offers specialized workshops for managers and HR executives, customized consulting in focused employment-related areas, and CD-ROM and web-based training alternatives. For more information, contact us at info@powelltrachtman.com and visit our website at www.counselconsulting.com.

Powell Trachtman Logan Carrle & Lombardo PC. is a full service law firm with offices in suburban Philadelphia, PA, Harrisburg, PA and Cherry Hill, NJ. Powell Trachtman represents a variety of commercial enterprises, entrepreneurs and business executives in respect to their litigation, litigation avoidance planning, business formation, business transactions, estate and tax planning, and other needs. We are also approved defense counsel for numerous insurance carriers in matters pertaining to professional malpractice, products liability, employment practices, directors and officers liability, and many other fields. For more information, contact us at info@powelltrachtman.com and visit our website at www.powelltrachtman.com.

Various insurance carriers have approved Powell Trachtman as counsel for the defense of employment practices claims, directors and officers liability claims, and other claims litigated in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. If a claim is brought against you, please feel free to contact us for further information.

©Copyright 2004 Powell, Trachtman, Logan, Carrle & Lombardo P.C. All rights reserved, except that recipients hereof are permitted, for noncommercial purposes, to provide copies or excerpts, with full attribution to us, to other interested persons for their personal use. Avoiding Lawsuits is distributed for general informational purposes only. It is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a competent attorney.

Problems Prevented and Solved

Successful settlement in favor of architect on highway design claim - read more

Successful resolution of claim by business buyer against business seller - read more

Successful resolution of a deficient design claim for a designer and construction manager of a warehouse distribution facility - read more

Acquisition of industrial property requiring environmental remediation - read more

Creation of ESOP as part of founder's succession plan - read more

Representation of numerous companies in structuring reductions in force - read more

Negotiation and finalization of software transfer transaction - read more

Successful resolution of shareholder buy/sell claim - read more

Successful resolution of sexual harassment claim - read more

Negotiation of a multi-million dollar statewide strategic sourcing contract - read more

Successful resolution of quadriplegia personal injury claim against college - read more

Successful defense of unfair competition action - read more

$37 million verdict in contractor/municipality dispute - read more

Representation of manufacturing entity in asset-based lending transaction - read more

Updating estate planning documents reveals major flaws - read more

Defense verdict in whistleblower/wrongful termination claim - read more

Successful representation of design professional in historic building damage claim - read more

Six-figure settlement for manufacturing firm against consultants - read more

Successful enforcement of covenant not to compete - read more

Successful resolution of claim against architectural firm involving design of concert hall - read more

Successful settlement of action against architect in multi-phase condominium project - read more

Successful settlement of architectural malpractice claim in roof collapse case - read more

Creative estate tax planning for the owner of a Subchapter S Corporation - read more

Representation of company in the negotiation and drafting of executive employment agreements - read more

Successful defense in architectural malpractice claim involving medical facility - read more

Successful resolution of multi-million dollar hotel water intrusion/mold growth claim - read more

Successful defense of employee's pregnancy discrimination and family leave act claims - read more

Acquisition, financing and development of manufacturing facility - read more

Defense verdict in favor of lift manufacturer - read more

Representation of retail distributor in acquisition of store locations - read more

Successful negotiation with the IRS to eliminate mounting interest and penalties for estate heirs - read more

Defense verdict for accounting firm in "deepening insolvency" case - read more

Examples of "preventive law" advice provided to clients - read more

Successful defense of computer hardware manufacturer - read more

Successful resolution of gender and race discrimination claim - read more

Successful defense of electrical product manufacturer - read more

Contact Us

475 Allendale Road, Suite 200
King of Prussia, PA 19406
Phone: 610-354-9700
Fax: 610-354-9760
Directions to King of Prussia Office
email us

1814 East Route 70, Suite 350
Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
Phone:856-663-0021
Fax: 856-663-1590
Directions to Cherry Hill Office
email us

114 North Second Street
5th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Phone: 717-238-9300
Fax: 717-238-9325
Directions to Harrisburg Office
email us

651 Holiday Drive
Foster Plaza 5, Suite 300
Pittsburgh, PA 15220
Phone: 412-250-2632
Fax: 412-250-4804
Directions to Pittsburgh Office
email us