What's New

More In
The Latest

Can The Women Prevail In The Wal-Mart Discrimination Lawsuit?

Libby Kane
Libby Kane
Posted on December 9, 2010

Gender discrimination isn’t just for Wall Street—it’s also for Wal-Mart. You’ve likely heard about the largest employment discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history between national super-store Wal-Mart and “hundreds of thousands” of its female employees, who claim that they have been discriminated against when it comes to pay and promotions.

Slow And Steady Sees The Court

In a feel-good movie, a flood of women would overtake the Supreme Court, quietly and respectfully prevailing against an evil conglomerate in a viewer-friendly 110 minutes. In reality, legal proceedings are much less efficient. This case began in 2001, when the initial claims were filed. Now, nearly ten years later, the Supreme Court is trying to decide whether or not they should allow women from different locations across the country to combine their individual claims into one class action suit. Before doing this, they will hear from Wal-Mart, who will argue that the claims are indeed plural, and cannot stand as a unified suit. If the court agrees with the retailer, the women’s legal power will be greatly diminished, as will the likelihood of receiving the billions of dollars in compensation they seek.

Paycheck Fairness Would Change The Game

In their own thoughts on this case, the Daily Worth mentions the Paycheck Fairness Act. Quick: Did it pass? In fact, the 2009 legislation that expanded upon the already-existing Fair Pay Act, in terms of parties being more easily able to seek retribution against discrimination, did not pass. Most likely, since they’re already taking legal action, such an act would have been a great advantage to plaintiffs in cases such as this. But the last thing a corporation wants is to be sued for every perceived injustice. With corporate America being the overwhelming power that it is, did the little guy—the Paycheck Fairness Act, or the Wal-Mart plaintiffs—ever have a chance?

—

Image Credit: BioJobBlog

Posted in: ,
  • Anonymous

    Nothing has worked to close the gender wage gap u2014 not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not affirmative action, not diversity, not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act…. Nor would the Paycheck Fairness Act have worked. None of the legislation pushed by pay-equity advocates works because the advocates continue to overlook this:nnDespite the 40-year-old demand for women’s equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of “The Secrets of Happily Married Women,” stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. “In the past few years,u201d he says in a CNN August 2008 report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, u201cmany women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.u201d (u201cCensus Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier….u201d at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. This may or may not reflect a higher percentage of women staying at home than in the previous decade. But if the percentage is higher, perhaps it’s because feminists and the media have told women relentlessly for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs, and so why bother working if they’re going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)nnAs full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Because they’re supported by their husband.nnIf millions of wives can accept no wages and live as well as their husbands, millions of other wives can accept low wages, refuse overtime and promotions, take more unpaid days off, avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining ( http://tinyurl.com/23qycq ) u2014 all of which lowers women’s average pay. They can do this because they are supported by a husband who must earn more than if he’d remained single u2014 which is how MEN help create the wage gap. (If the roles were reversed so that men raised the children and women raised the income, men would average lower pay than women.)nnSee u201cA Male Matters Response to the Ledbetter Fair Pay Actu201d at http://tinyurl.com/pvbrcunnBy the way, the next Equal Occupational Fatality Day is in 2020. The year 2020 is how far into the future women will have to work to experience the same number of work-related deaths that men experienced in 2009 alone. See http://tinyurl.com/yab2blv nnAs for the Walmart case, see “Taking Apart the Sex-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart” at http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/male_matters_takes_apart_the_classaction_lawsuit_against_wal.htmn

  • Joseph

    Wow, so many evils in one article: Wal Mart, discrimination, abuse of the legal system, oh my! Not knowing enough about the case, I can’t say whether or not the women should be allowed to bring their suit together in a class action but I assume that they’re trying to argue that there is a conspiracy. This argument would be impossible to make if they aren’t allowed to bring one suit. I look forward to watching this case unfold and hope that the women of Wal Mart get the outcome they’re looking for!

    • Lddanelle

      I am a women who worked 8 years for walmart. I have watched men get hired and promoted right in front of me. I also know of men who held the same job title and was paid more. Cheated on paperwork for inventories and other things. sex, drugs, money and men who cheat the system. I can work circles around them but they let me go. thats how Walmart rolls.