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.