00-1971 Alverio v. Sam's Warehouse Club, Inc.

Listen to this article

“[L]awyers are given considerable leeway in formulating a gender-neutral rationale for jury strikes. … Here, in addition to identifying unique factors that only affected the three struck jurors – unemployment, participation as a plaintiff in a lawsuit, and employment in an insurance company – Holloway also identified an overarching concern, extensive work-force participation, which he applied consistently to the entire array. All remaining empaneled jurors were employed, and many had considerable work experience.”

“Because all the women were removed from the panel, Alverio contends that Sam’s Club’s proffered reason was pretextual and rested on a stereotype that women have less business experience. First, the exclusion of all members of a specific minority group does not, on its own, establish that the peremptory strikes were discriminatory. … Second, we doubt that at this point in time, women can be said to have less work experience than their male counterparts; thus, it is unlikely that ‘having business experience’ can serve as a proxy for ‘male juror.’… The question here is whether Mr. Holloway had a gender-neutral reason for striking these jurors. According to Judge Cleland, he did, and we give great deference to the judge’s determination of discriminatory intent… Here, we find that Judge Cleland did not err in allowing Sam’s Club to strike the three female jurors from the pool.”

Affirmed.

00-1971 Alverio v. Sam’s Warehouse Club, Inc.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Lozano, J., Evans, J.