Since the passage of welfare reform in 1996, ERA has been advocating and implementation of state-level welfare policies that support effective ways for low-income women to move out of poverty. Through these efforts, we learned that due to California’s Work First model, many former welfare recipients were being placed in entry level, low-skilled, low-wage positions in the retail industry. According to the State of California’s Employment Development Department the retail salesperson occupation requires no previous experience or skills, and only “short-term on the job training.” Furthermore, this occupation was predicted to have the most new job openings between 1998-2008. In 1998, there were an estimated 429,600 retail sales job openings in California and by 2008, there will be an estimated 234,400 more retail sales job openings. Unfortunately, many women in the retail industry experience gender discrimination in training, promotion, and compensation. 

Upon adopting a litigation strategy in early 2000, ERA chose to combat gender discrimination in the retail industry.  As our first step, ERA and its co-counsel filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores for denying female employees advancement and training opportunities, paying them less than men for the same or comparable work, and retaliating against them when they attempt to address sex discrimination. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores is an action that has the potential to positively impact the lives of over half a million women who are employed at the more than 3100 Wal-Mart retail stores in the United States, including Wal-Mart discount stores, supercenters, and Sam’s Club.

As a result of Wal-Mart’s discriminatory practices, women hold only a small percentage of the company’s management positions, while they comprise over two-thirds of the sales workforce.In fact, less than one-third of store management overall at Wal-Mart are women—a percentage far lower than the number of female managers employed by Wal-Mart’s major competitors (56%), and lower than the percentage employed by its competitors back in 1975 (42%).

Behind these statistics are real women who have experienced economic struggle, disappointment and unfairness.Many women join Wal-Mart as sales associates, earning minimum wage. They work hard, toil Òoff the clockÓ, and endure transfers that uproot their families.They view these sacrifices as the necessary steps to obtaining higher-level positions, which provide higher wages, medical benefits and increased responsibilities.These higher-level positions would enable the women to cease living hand to mouth, secure better housing, and provide greater economic security to their families.However, at Wal-Mart Stores, the female employees are encouraged to make these sacrifices, but they are rarely rewarded for their efforts. Instead, they are routinely denied higher-level positions, and therefore forced to continue living in financial uncertainty.Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores provides female employees of Wal-Mart—approximately 700,000 women—with the hope that one day Wal-Mart will treat its female employees fairly and equally.Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores provides hundreds of thousands of women with the hope that one day Wal-Mart will be a place of employment where female employees are treated fairly and equally.