U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Sterling Jewelers Plaintiffs' Class Arbitration

Ruling Clears Way for Women Employees to Pursue Gender Discrimination Claims

WASHINGTON, July 6, 2011 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A group of women who claim they were paid less than men while working for Sterling Jewelers, Inc., can seek to pursue their claims as class action in arbitration against the national jewelry chain, the U.S.  Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, ruled last Friday.  The ruling in Jock et. al v. Sterling Jewelers Inc., should pave the way for the women who have worked at Sterling's stores to seek class certification of the gender discrimination claims.

"This is a well-justified vote of confidence for the arbitration process," said the claimant's lead counsel Joseph M. Sellers, of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. "This decision clears the way for these women to proceed with their long-standing gender discrimination claims in the hopes of bringing them to a successful conclusion."

The female employees sued Sterling Jewelers in 2008, contending that they were paid less than male co-workers and denied equal opportunity for promotion.  The case was referred to the American Arbitration Association because Sterling's alternative dispute resolution program requires that such claims go to arbitration. Sixteen women brought the case in their own names and on behalf of other women that are situated similarly and will seek certification as a class action.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) previously had determined there was reasonable cause to believe that Sterling had subjected female employees to a pattern of discrimination in their pay and promotion practices.

Sterling has denied the women's claims and argued that its arbitration program, called RESOLVE, barred them from pursuing their claims as a class action.  In 2009, the arbitrator ruled that Sterling's RESOLVE program did not prohibit the women from bringing pursuing their claims collectively in arbitration. Sterling appealed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which upheld the arbitrator's ruling.

Sterling asked the District Court to reconsider its ruling after a U.S. Supreme Court decision in another case held that an arbitration agreement did not permit class arbitration. Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in that case, Stolt-Nielsen, S.A. v. AnimalFeeds International Corp., the District Court held in 2010 that the arbitrator exceeded her powers in allowing the claimants to seek to proceed collectively against Sterling.

Attorneys for the women appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit located in New York, which ruled in their favor in a 25-page decision issued Friday. "In sum, we hold that the arbitrator did not exceed her authority in determining that the agreement permitted the plaintiffs to proceed with their effort to certify a class in the arbitration proceedings," the Court stated.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Joseph M. Sellers, Jenny R. Yang and Kalpana Kotagal of Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, Washington, D.C.; Thomas Warren of Thomas A. Warren Law Offices PL, Tallahassee, Fla.; and Sam Smith of Burr & Smith LLP, Tampa, Fla.

For more information, visit www.cohenmilstein.com

For Interviews or Copy of Decision, Contact:
Pam Avery
[email protected]
402-305-0799

SOURCE Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC