Wal-Mart may have won the war, but it will have to gear up for battle once again — facing smaller skirmishes on several fronts. The company’s current and former female employees have regrouped and are reasserting claims that the retail giant has systematically discriminated against women in pay and promotions in numerous regions in California and in the South. More cases are expected to be filed elsewhere in the nation, according to class counsel.

In a seminal ruling, the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v Dukes barred a nationwide class action sex discrimination suit against Wal-Mart, with a proposed class of some 1.5 million class members, from proceeding. Reversing the Ninth Circuit, the High Court held the employees provided insufficient evidence of commonality among the class members to satisfy FRCP 23(a) requirements.

Mini-Dukes. Undaunted, class counsel pared the Dukes class to several hundred thousand proposed members. The narrower class includes current and former female Wal-Mart employees who were subjected to gender discrimination within four regions largely based in California (in contrast to the 41 regions that comprised the rejected nationwide class). The plaintiffs also excluded from the proposed class women who held positions as store managers and licensed pharmacists. In a September 21 ruling, a federal district court in California rejected the retailer’s attempt to dispose of the class claims, paving the way for a piecemeal, regional approach to class resolution of the nationwide allegations of discrimination.

While the Supreme Court’s 2011 ruling held the plaintiffs’ evidence could not establish that there was a general policy of discrimination throughout Wal-Mart’s operations nationwide, the High Court had not considered the narrower class-action claim now before the district court; nor did the Court foreclose it. Concluding that the employees proposed a class that could be certified if they made a showing consistent with the Supreme Court’s new class certification guidelines, the district court reserved for another day the issue of whether the employees’ evidence would suffice under Rule 23.

The district court also rejected Wal-Mart’s assertion that the Supreme Court’s mandate foreclosed relitigation of the certification issue. The Supreme Court itself has stated that when a court denies class certification, it would expect that court “to reassess and revise such an order in response to events ‘occurring in the ordinary course of litigation.’” As such, it is common for district courts to permit renewed certification motions setting forth a more narrowly defined class or based upon different facts or legal theories, the district court pointed out.

“We have maintained all along that the Supreme Court’s decision did not preclude us from seeking justice for the women of Wal-Mart through class actions consistent with its new guidelines and standards, nor did the Court rule on the merits of the case,” said Brad Seligman, of the Impact Fund, lead counsel in the Dukes case. “This decision vindicates our argument.”

Four complaints to date. The California litigation was one of two pared-down class actions filed in October 2011. In addition to the Dukes case, Odle v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. was filed in a federal district court in Texas. With two new complaints filed this week, the litigation has expanded to Wal-Mart stores in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Love v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, filed Thursday in a federal district court in Florida, marks the fourth regional post-Dukes class action suit against Wal-Mart. The complaint asserts that Wal-Mart discriminated against women in pay and promotions through the company’s southeast region. According to class counsel, the retailer “fosters a work environment that actively discriminates against women and management has failed to take action to prevent gender disparities,” contending also that these practices “permeated stores throughout the region.” Earlier this week, Phipps v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc, was filed in a federal court in Tennessee, alleging the retailer discriminated against female employees at stores throughout Wal-Mart’s Region 43.

“Many of us have waited more than a decade to have our day in court to fight for the pay and advancement opportunities that we rightly deserved,” the lead plaintiff said.

More information about the complaints and counsel for the respective classes can be found at the Wal-Mart class website: www.walmartclass.com.