In the wake of the recent Walmart decision, one strategy for companies facing a gender bias lawsuit is to try and get the case to the Supreme Court--where they would appear to have a better chance these days of prevailing.

And so it goes for Goldman Sachs. Recall that three women sued the bank last year, spectacularly charging that the bank underpays and underpromotes women. The suit is seeking class-action status for "similarly situated" current and former female associates, vice presidents and managing directors employed by the company.

Does last month's decision by the Supreme Court that a gender bias case against Walmart on behalf of a group of more than 1.5 million workers change anything? The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims did not have enough in common to sue as a group, an argument that Goldman Sachs' legal team is also pressing.

Reuters notes that Goldman Sachs lawyers have written in recent filings that "the [Walmart] holding has powerful relevance here. The charge does not mention or allege any class-wide problem common to any 'similarly-situated women' plaintiff Chen-Oster seeks to represent. It does not set forth even one factual contention supposedly common to her and anyone else." It just might be that the Walmart decision will prove to be a near-landmark in effect on other discrimination suits.

For more:
- here's the article

Related article:
Goldman Sachs sued for gender discrimination, harassment