Apr 28 2010
Wal-Mart to Face Potentially Largest Sex-Discrimination Lawsuit in History
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Monday that a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart could proceed as a class-action case. The narrow 6-5 decision by the San Francisco court exposes the retail giant to potential liabilities running in the billions of dollars. The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart’s corporate structure systematically discriminated against female employees in terms of compensation and promotions. The case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., was originally filed nearly ten years ago by Betty Dukes and six other plaintiffs and may now finally move to trial in light of Monday’s ruling. Prior to the decision, the corporation that is the largest private employer in the United States had asked that the class-action status be dropped arguing that it was too large to be considered. The majority court opinion rejected that notion as Judge Michael Daly Hawkins wrote that; “although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable.” As many as one million or more women currently or formerly employed with the corporation since June 2001 could be included in the lawsuit making it one of the largest, if not the largest sex-discrimination class-action case in U.S. history. Wal-Mart has vowed to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision all the way to the Supreme Court.
GUEST: Arcelia Hurtado, Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates
Find out more at www.equalrights.org and www.walmartclass.com.
2 Responses to “Wal-Mart to Face Potentially Largest Sex-Discrimination Lawsuit in History”
The Ninth Circuit is blind to the fact that Wal-Mart discriminates mostly against men.
Says Dr. Warren Farrell, author of “Why Men Earn More”:
“We can understand that Wal-Mart would hire 99% women in its ladies’ sportswear and hosiery departments, as long as Wal-Mart’s men’s wear department hires about 99% men. But it doesn’t. In Wal-Mart, men’s wear is 93% women.
Approximately 145,000 Wal-Mart employees are in departments in which 91%-99% of employees are women. With the exception of one department requiring the expertise of auto mechanics — TBO Service (Time Between Overhauls [men love acronyms!] — no department had 90% or more men. Thus, when a department did have disproportionately men, it was usually because of either specific skills needed (maintenance, 80% men) or the risk of personal safety and willingness to use physical strength (security, 88% men).
Whether in women’s wear or men’s wear, at Wal-Mart or anywhere, women are more likely to be hired when skills aren’t required.
Now here’s the irony. Wal-Mart is being sued, for discrimination against women — fewer are promoted to top management. Yet no one is asking about the degree to which the discrimination against women is accounted for by the discrimination for women — hiring almost all women in positions requiring few or no skills. It seems obvious that an assessment of discrimination should begin by asking, “What percentage of equally skilled men versus women get promoted?”
How many jobless men, especially young minority men, would love to have one of these jobs held by women, many of whom may be supported by a husband?
See “Taking Apart the Sex-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart” at http://tinyurl.com/lnn3xn
OK so Walmart hires more women. Hello the men who work at Walmart are in charge, they are the managers. so once again, or still, women are doing the dishes, cooking the meals and lookin after the children! This is BS and I’m glad someone is standing up and saying something, better yet doing something to shake up this old fashioned garbage! Like all “males” when hit in the wallet they listen!