|
Largest Discrimination Case in History: Wal-Mart's Appeal Denied
By Jennifer Millman
February 07, 2007
After nine months of deliberation,
a California federal appellate court upheld a
2004 federal-court ruling granting class-action status to a lawsuit alleging
Wal-Mart engaged in systemic gender discrimination in pay and promotions. Now
the lawsuit, initially filed by six women in 2001, could involve up to 1.6
million former and current employees--and the potential damages are formidable.
It could cost Wal-Mart billions in
litigation and related fees, not to mention damaged brand reputation. What are
the legal implications of this ruling, and what's Wal-Mart's defense?
What's Going
On?
In 2001, six former Wal-Mart
employees filed a lawsuit against the company, alleging systemic gender-based
discrimination in pay and promotions for hourly associates and salaried
employees in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Two years
later, the plaintiffs moved to certify a national class of women reporting
similar experiences, which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California approved in 2004.
To qualify for class-action
status, plaintiffs must meet four requirements:
·
Numerosity--class is so numerous that joinder
of all members is impracticable
·
Commonality--there are questions of law or
fact common to the class
·
Typicality--the claims or defenses of the
representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class;
and
·
Adequacy--representative parties will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class
Wal-Mart appealed, arguing its
case before an appellate court in 2005. Yesterday, the San Francisco Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals delivered its 2-1 ruling upholding class-action status
for the lawsuit, which encompasses all current and former employees from
December 1998 to the present, excluding senior managers and pharmacy workers.
Why did the appellate court reject Wal-Mart's appeal?
"Plaintiff's expert opinions,
factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present
significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support
plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a
common pattern and practice of discrimination," the court wrote. Read the
opinion.
Plaintiffs presented evidence
documenting 1.6 million women's discriminatory experiences in 184 stores
(excluding corporate headquarters and distribution centers) in 30 states--expert
and insider testimony, more than 1.2 million pages of documents from Wal-Mart's
corporate files, 200 sworn depositions, electronic payroll data and anecdotal,
factual and statistical evidence to support their claims. Learn more about the
case on the plaintiffs' class-action web site.
See statistical
charts.
The Berkeley, Calif.-based Impact
Fund, a nonprofit legal-strategy organization specializing in class-action law,
coordinated the class-action suit. Executive Director Brad Seligman submits
these claims are neither isolated nor localized but denote Wal-Mart's "legacy of
treating women as second class."
The class-action proceeding
involves two phases. Plaintiffs first argue their case and then Wal-Mart will
have an opportunity to rebut. Should the court find evidence that indicates a
pattern of systemic gender-based discrimination in pay and promotions, the trial
will proceed to the second phase, in which plaintiffs seek redress.
Wal-Mart's
Defense
Although class-action
certification isn't a merit determinant, the ruling provides leverage for
high-cost settlements, which adversely impact market share and corporate
reputation. Seeking to minimize the hard and soft costs, Wal-Mart is proactively
affirming its commitment to equal opportunity and plans to appeal to a larger
panel, which it is entitled to do, that would issue a new decision.
What's Wal-Mart's defense? The
1.6-million-member class-action suit is too big to give the retailer a realistic
shot at self-defense, according to Wal-Mart attorneys. Also, the women's claims
are not indicative of systemic discrimination, according to the company's
internal review, which found women have wage parity and equivalent advancement
opportunities to men in 90 percent of its stores. Wal-Mart wanted to allow mini
class-action suits filed against individual stores, citing the autonomous nature
of its business units and the likelihood that discriminatory practices, if they
indeed were employed, reflect the management styles of unique units, not
corporate-wide employment practice.
Who supports Wal-Mart? The U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, the Employer Group, the Equal Employment Advisory Council,
the Retail Industry Leaders Association and Washington Legal Foundation all
filed amicus briefs on Wal-Mart's behalf.
Should the world's largest private
employer be held accountable for practices within its individual business units?
Martin's ruling says "yes," which has profound implications for how large
corporations approach employment law.
Days before the ruling, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission released its most recent charge statistics,
which indicated an upsurge in claims for the first time in three years. Overall,
sex-discrimination charges have decreased by about 1,000 since 1997 (23,247 in
2006) but still comprise 31 percent of all charges--second only to race-based
claims with respect to its share of total charges filed under Title VII.
Monetary benefits, however, are up from $72.5 million in 1997 to $99.1 million
in 2006, excluding costs associated with litigation.
Wal-Mart's Commitment to
Diversity
Wal-Mart, one of DiversityInc's 25 Noteworthy Companies in 2006,
defends its commitment to diversity, arguing that the lawsuit ignores women who
do get paid more than their male counterparts, the reasons certain jobs pay more
than others, and Wal-Mart's comprehensive efforts to leverage diversity for
strategic advantage.
According to its web site,
"Wal-Mart will not
tolerate discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, age, sex,
sexual orientation, religion, disability, ethnicity, national origin, marital
status, veteran status, or any other legally-protected status."
Wal-Mart proactively issued a
press release to this point. The statement, issued yesterday, emphasizes three
key points in light of Martin's decision: Today's ruling has nothing to do
with the merits of the claims; this is one step in a long process; and Wal-Mart
is an equal-opportunity employer.
The company's web-site diversity
section underscores the latter point and emphasizes Wal-Mart's commitment to
transparency by providing EEO data, which it is not required to publicize, as
well as an annual report on organizational and executive progress implementing
and executing diversity goals.
Wal-Mart's third-party Career
Preference System ensures equitable hiring and promotion processes for qualified
hourly associates by pre-registering eligible candidates so they're immediately
aware of new opportunities. The software currently is being implemented for
hourly associates and then will be rolled out to management. The goal is to
create one consistent system. Read
the details.
What is Wal-Mart doing for its
women?
·
Its
14-member board of directors includes three women.
·
Women
comprise 60 percent of Wal-Mart associates and nearly 39 percent of
managers.
·
CEO Lee
Scott ties executive compensation to diversity. If corporate officers don't meet
hiring and placement goals, bonuses are reduced by up to 15 percent. In 2006,
all 297 officers and managers achieved their goals.
·
Wal-Mart conducts
leadership-development programs, diversity training, seminars designed
specifically for women and aggressive recruiting strategies within women's
colleges.
·
On the
forefront of efforts to promote diversity in the legal profession, the company
refuses to do business with external firms that do not mirror its
commitment.
·
Wal-Mart established an Employment
Practices Advisory Panel of renowned experts to assist senior managers in
developing and implementing diversity objectives.
Read Wal-Mart's diversity fact
sheets for more on what the retailer is doing to empower women in its
workplace, supplier community and society at large.
More from Today's Diversity News << PREVIOUS ITEM
Send Your Comments About This Article Now
©DiversityInc. Reproduction in any format is absolutely prohibited.
|