WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider Wal-Mart Stores Inc. 's challenge to a major class-action lawsuit alleging the retailing giant discriminated against female employees.

The justices will review a divided lower-court ruling that allowed the civil-rights lawsuit to proceed as one of the largest class actions in history. The case, which dates back to 2001, involves claims that could amount to billions of dollars.

Wal-Mart argued the lower-court ruling was an unprecedented expansion of class actions, which allow plaintiffs to pool their individual claims into one big suit.

The retailer's high-court petition is being supported by an array of corporations, including Bank of America Corp. , General Electric Co. and Microsoft Corp. They say the lower-court ruling threatens to expose companies to staggering liability by allowing unrelated discrimination claims to proceed as class actions.

Six women filed the suit on behalf of current and former Wal-Mart employees, alleging the company paid female workers significantly less than their male counterparts and offered them fewer opportunities for advancement. The plaintiffs are seeking back pay, punitive damages and changes to how Wal-Mart makes its pay and promotion decisions. They conceded their class action is a large one, but said that's to be expected because Wal-Mart is the largest corporate U.S. employer.

The high court will likely hear arguments next spring, with a decision expected by July.

The plaintiffs alleged Wal-Mart's culture and employment polices fostered gender stereotyping and led to adverse treatment of women in all of the retailer's 41 domestic regions. They charged that Wal-Mart knew of discrimination against its female employees but failed to act.

Wal-Mart said it is an excellent place for women to work, with policies that prohibit discrimination. The retailer said the case shouldn't be granted class-action status because the plaintiffs' claims are too varied to proceed together, making it difficult for the company to mount a defense in a single case.