>At first glance, the Walmart class action sex discrimination case argued earlier this week before the Supreme Court and the Court's 5-to-4 reversal of a multi-million dollar damage award to a man who was wrongly imprisoned because of gross prosecutorial misconduct don't seem to have much in common. But take a second look: Each case involves questions of corporate or governmental liability, respectively, for misconduct by individual employees; and, in each case, vindicating the alleged violations of rights could disrupt the status quo and provide remedies for systemic, institutionalized injustice. If the Orleans Parish district attorney's office were held liable for the knowing misconduct of its prosecutors in a capital case, then other government agencies might no longer enjoy relative immunity for the misconduct of their agents. If Walmart is exposed to a class action lawsuit charging systemic sex discrimination, then so could many other companies in which men are allegedly given preferential treatment over women.
Shouldn't a government that supposedly serves the people be held to high standards of conduct, and how might those standards be enforced if governments aren't liable for ignoring them?
Walmart v Dukes is, to be fair, more complicated legally and morally than Connick v Thompson, a case in which prosecutors admittedly violated an apparently innocent man's rights in order to convict him of a capital offense, for which he served 18 years under threat of execution. In Walmart, the Court is considering whether "hundreds of thousands of female employees" may be certified as a class for purposes of a sex discrimination suit. Plaintiffs are required to show "commonality" for class certification, and a central question before the Court involves company policy regarding the treatment of women and whether the plaintiffs were victims of institutionalized discrimination or discrete discriminatory acts by individual managers -- in Justice Roberts's words, "bad apples."
It's not an easy question, but the conservative majority seems likely to embrace the bad apples theory, in part, I suspect, because it would obviate even considering claims of systemic discrimination. New York Times reporter Adams Liptak quotes this telling exchange between Justice Alito and plaintiff's counsel's Joseph M. Sellers:
"So, you have the company that is absolutely typical of the entire American work force," Justice Alito said. "Then you would say every single company is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act?"
"That could very well be the case," Mr. Sellers said.
And that is a possibility weighing heavily against the plaintiffs. A majority of justices seem about as likely to expose "typical" American companies to class action discrimination claims as they are likely to seek employment at Walmart.
Bad-apples jurisprudence doomed John Thompson's case against the Orleans Parish district attorney, involving the admitted, intentional failure to provide the defense with exculpatory evidence (as constitutionally required by Brady v Maryland.) Here, as in the Walmart case, the Court considered whether a violation of rights should be attributed to office policy or the discrete acts of an employee. Writing for the majority and overturning the jury verdict, Justice Thomas blamed a "rogue prosecutor," giving little credence to the claim that Brady violations were common and predictable, attributable to the D.A.'s failure to train his prosecutors and his "deliberate indifference" to constitutional rights. Prosecutors don't need training, Thomas suggested, displaying remarkable detachment from reality, because they've obtained law degrees and passed their bar exams. But what's striking about this case, aside from the majority's apparent indifference to practical realities and the actual sufferings of an innocent man wrongfully sentenced to die, is its indifference to the facts of the case outlined by Justice Ginsburg's dissent.