Equal Pay Act prohibits an employer from discriminating
between male and female employees by paying lower
wage rates to employees of one sex than to the
other for work which requires equal skill, effort
and responsibility, and which is performed under
similar work conditions. Some segments of American
industry continue to operate on the outmoded belief
that a man, based upon his role in society, should
be paid more than a woman, even though the woman
may be performing the same duties. In fact, many
employees are unaware that they are experiencing
violations of these laws. Strict statutes of limitations
govern the time period within which an employee
must bring such claims under the Equal Pay Act.
Burr & Smith, L.L.P. is experienced litigating
multiparty cases under this Act. If you are concerned
you are not receiving the pay to which you are
entitled, contact us for a consultation.
Sterling Jewelers Inc.:
Female Employees of Sterling
Jewelers Move For Class Certification Of Their Claims Of Sex Discrimination in Compensation and Promotions.
On February 2, 2015, after a lengthy hearing and extensive briefing, Arbitrator Kathleen Roberts issued a ruling granting class certification to a class estimated to include 44,000 current and former women employees at Sterling Jewelers Inc.’s retail stores nationwide dating back to 2004 and going forward to the present and up to the first day of trial. The ruling permits the class to try on a classwide basis claims alleging that Sterling’s pay and promotion practices affecting retail sales associates have had an adverse effect on women. If the class succeeds in proving that the challenged pay and promotion practices were discriminatory, then, the Arbitrator also ruled, the class may seek classwide changes to the challenged pay and promotion practices. The ruling also provides that if the class proves the challenged practices were discriminatory, the Arbitrator will establish procedures to allow class members to recover damages for the wages lost because of the discrimination. The Arbitrator also ruled that the claim alleging intentional discrimination did not satisfy the high standard for class certification that the Supreme Court recently announced. The Arbitrator also directed the parties to prepare a Notice to be sent to class members informing them of their rights under this ruling. The ruling can be read here.
It is very important that anyone, female or male, who has information about these discrimination allegations or more generally about how Sterling has treated its women employees please call the lawyers at 202-408-4600 (Matt Jackson) providing your contact information and where you worked for Sterling . You may also contact our co-counsel Thomas A. Warren Law Offices, P.L., (Misty McKinnon) toll-free at (866) 854-5152; or Burr & Smith at (813) 253-2010 or (866) 647-3110, or by email at firstname.lastname@example.org We are interested in speaking with former or current employees, both male and female. (Please note that we are not ethically permitted to discuss the case with current managers unless they believe they have experienced or are experiencing gender discrimination at Sterling).
Background History of Case
The Claimants are current and former female employees of Sterling Jewelers Inc. who have alleged they were paid less than similarly-situated male employees or were denied promotional opportunities because of their gender. The Claimants have worked at stores, owned by Sterling, that operate under the brand names: Kay Jewelers, Jared the Galleria of Jewelry, Marks and Morgan Jewelers, J.B. Robinson Jewelers, LeRoy’s Jewelers, Osterman Jewelers, Goodman Jewelers, Weisfield Jewelers, Shaw’s Jewelers, Friedlanders Jewelers, Rogers Jewelers, and Belden Jewelers.
The case, Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., AAA Case No. 11 160 00655 08, was filed in March 2008 with the American Arbitration Association, a private agency that manages arbitrations, rather than in court, because Sterling’s alternative dispute resolution program called the RESOLVE Program requires that employees bring claims of this kind before an arbitrator, who acts as a private judge. Current and former female employees of Sterling sued Sterling under federal civil rights laws alleging that they were paid less than men doing the same work at the same stores and have been denied chances for promotion into salaried jobs because of their gender. The Claimants’ First Amended Complaint can be viewed
Claimants’ First Amended Complaint.
Sterling denied that it has committed any discrimination and argued that, in any event, its RESOLVE Program does not permit these women to pursue this case as a class action.
On June 1, 2009, the Arbitrator issued an order finding that Sterling’s RESOLVE Program did not prohibit the Claimants in Jock from bringing their claims together in a class action in arbitration. The Arbitrator’s decision permitting the claimants to seek class certification of their discrimination claims is linked
Arbitrator’s June 1, 2009 Clause Construction
On July 1, 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an important ruling in Jock et al. v. Sterling Jewelers Inc. finding that the Arbitrator properly held that the Claimants could seek to pursue their gender-discrimination claims in a class arbitration. The decision reversed a district court order that had found that the Arbitrator exceeded her powers in allowing the claimants to seek class certification of their discrimination claims. The Second Circuit’s decision can be viewed by selecting this link: Second Circuit’s July 1, 2011 Decision.
On March 19, 2012, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Sterling Jewelers, thus upholding a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which held that the Claimants could seek class certification of their gender discrimination claims within arbitration. The denial of the writ, can be read here. An article discussing the case and the Supreme Court’s decision can be found here.
Prior to filing the demand for arbitration and the First Amended Arbitration Complaint, at
least fifteen current or former female employees of Sterling filed
charges of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”). On January 3, 2008, the EEOC issued a
Determination finding that Sterling subjected them and other female
employees working at its stores in this country who have retail
sales responsibilities to a pattern or practice of sex
discrimination by paying women less than men doing the same work and
denying women the same chance for promotion into salaried jobs. On
September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed its own lawsuit against Sterling
alleging a pattern or practice of gender discrimination in its pay
and promotion decisions. On March 10, 2014, the U.S. District Court in Buffalo, New York, dismissed the EEOC's case against Sterling based on its finding that the agency's investigation against the company was not national in scope. The decision to dismiss the case was not based on the merits of the case. The EEOC's litigation is a separate proceeding from Claimants' case, which remains pending in arbitration.
On June 21, 2013, Claimants moved for class certification of on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated female employees who work or worked in any of Sterling’s brand stores during the relevant period. The brief in support of the Claimants' Motion can be accessed here. The Arbitrator had ruled that the Claimants may make their motion for class certification available to the public after some material in the brief had been redacted.
Publix Super Market Employees Sue for Equal Job
The attorneys at Burr & Smith, L.L.P. have
extensive experience litigating cases involving
gender discrimination. For instance, Shores v.
Publix Supermarkets, Burr & Smith, L.L.P.
and co-counsel, obtained certification for more
than 160,000 female current and former employees
of Publix Super Markets to sue as a class for
discrimination in various job benefits, including
promotions, allocation of hours, job assignments,
job advancement, pay and employment opportunities.
In 1997, the Court approved a settlement awarding
these women $81.5 million in monetary relief and
extensive injunctive relief.
hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that
should not be based solely upon advertisements.
Before you decide, ask us to send you free written
information about our qualifications and experience.
We will also provide you on request with additional
information on any other statements contained
in this website.