Just how far-reaching was it?

Sound and fury broke out when a bitterly divided U.S. Supreme Court imposed strict limitations on sex-discrimination cases in the workplace.

The justices voted 5-4 that employees cannot bring claims for discrimination in pay under federal civil rights laws unless they file within 180 days after their pay is set.

Immediately, four Democratic senators—Hillary Clinton of New York, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, and Barbara Mikulski of Maryland—said they would quickly introduce legislation to remove the technical hurdle created by the ruling in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The senators were following up on a suggestion from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who, in a biting dissent, lamented that "the ball is in Congress's court" to overturn the ruling.

But what, if anything, does the decision mean for sex-discrimination cases currently in the courts—particularly the mother of them all, the Wal-Mart class action suit with more than 2 million plaintiffs?

In a narrow sense, based on these two particular sets of claims, the Supreme Court decision didn't render the Wal-Mart case moot. But it could impose a limit on the damages plaintiffs can recover from the company and even disqualify some plaintiffs entirely.

Based on the Ledbetter decision, defense lawyers around the country are busy preparing motions to dismiss individual claims. Louis A. Rodriques, co-chair of the labor and employment group at Bingham McCutchen, is one of them.

His law firm, which represents companies sued by workers, is already trying to get several cases thrown out of court based on the Ledbetter decision.

He said that many courts allowed pay discrimination claims to proceed long after an allegedly discriminatory pay decision, on the theory that each new paycheck with lower pay "was a kind of separate wrong."

There may be a certain logic in that. Rodriques noted that pay decisions in the workplace are often closely guarded secrets, but pointed out that the court's decision does hew to precedent, which is also important.

In her dissent, Justice Ginsburg cited a law review article suggesting that one-third of private-sector employers have adopted rules prohibiting employees from discussing their wages with one another.

Rodriques said he basically agrees with Ginsburg but believes the majority rendered the right decision in putting pay discrimination claims on the same footing with cases involving demotions and terminations, in which workers were required to file claims within the tight 180-day timeline. (In the numerous states that have a fair employment agency, including employment hubs such as New York and California, the rule is 300 days.) 

"The fact is, women have just as much of a difficult time learning whether they are being promoted or demoted or terminated as they do about pay decisions," Rodriques said. He added that he thinks creative lawyers will seek to work around the Supreme Court decision on behalf of plaintiffs.

That case involved the North Carolina Extension Service, which in the early 1960s separated its employees into a "white branch" and a "Negro branch," with the latter getting lower pay. Rodriques said plaintiffs' lawyers will probably try to tailor new cases to fit this precedent.

Piper Hoffman, a lawyer with Outten & Golden of New York, a prominent plaintiffs firm, said employees should look to the more liberal state and local laws to get out from under the Ledbetter ruling.

For instance, New York City law is very generous to employees. It allows them three years to bring a pay discrimination claim and has an explicitly broader definition of what constitutes discrimination.

As the motions to dismiss keep coming, the National Employment Lawyers Association is calling on the "best minds" in its organization to come up with practical tips for its members.

"Our members are going to have to deal with Ledbetter until Congress fixes the problem," said Terisa Chaw, N.E.L.A.'s executive director.