Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
Page Number: 36

Cite as:  564 U. S. ____ (2011) 

5 

Opinion of GINSBURG, J. 

Wal-Mart’s  supervisors  do  not  make  their  discretion-
ary  decisions  in  a  vacuum.  The  District  Court  reviewed 
means Wal-Mart used to maintain a “carefully constructed
. . .  corporate  culture,”  such  as  frequent  meetings  to  re- 
inforce  the  common  way  of  thinking,  regular  transfers  of
managers  between  stores  to  ensure  uniformity  through-
out the company, monitoring of stores “on a close and con-
stant  basis,”  and  “Wal-Mart  TV,”  “broadcas[t]  . . .  into 
all  stores.” 
Id.,  at  151–153  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).

The  plaintiffs’  evidence,  including  class  members’  tales 
of  their  own  experiences,4  suggests  that  gender  bias  suf-
fused  Wal-Mart’s  company  culture.    Among  illustrations, 
senior  management  often  refer  to  female  associates  as 
“little Janie Qs.”  Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification 
in  No.  3:01–cv–02252–CRB  (ND  Cal.),  Doc.  99,  p. 13  (in-
ternal  quotation  marks  omitted).  One  manager  told  an
employee  that  “[m]en  are  here  to  make  a  career  and 
women  aren’t.”  222  F. R. D.,  at  166  (internal  quotation 
marks  omitted).  A  committee  of  female  Wal-Mart  execu-
tives  concluded  that  “[s]tereotypes  limit  the  opportunities 
offered  to  women.”    Plaintiffs’  Motion  for  Class  Certifica-
tion  in  No.  3:01–cv–02252–CRB  (ND  Cal.),  Doc.  99,  at  16
(internal quotation marks omitted).

Finally, the plaintiffs presented an expert’s appraisal to
show that the pay and promotions disparities at Wal-Mart 
“can  be  explained  only  by  gender  discrimination  and  not 
by  . . .  neutral  variables.”    222  F. R. D.,  at  155.    Using
regression  analyses,  their  expert,  Richard  Drogin,  con-

—————— 

4 The  majority  purports  to  derive  from  Teamsters  v.  United  States, 
431 U. S. 324 (1977), a rule that a discrimination claim, if accompanied
by anecdotes, must supply them in numbers proportionate to the size of 
the  class.  Ante,  at  17–18.  Teamsters,  the  Court  acknowledges,  see 
ante,  at  18,  n. 9,  instructs  that  statistical  evidence  alone  may  suffice, 
431  U. S.,  at  339;  that  decision  can  hardly  be  said  to  establish  a  nu-
merical floor before anecdotal evidence can be taken into account.