 |
Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores
As
the first step in our Retail
Discrimination Project, ERA and its co-counsel filed a class action sex discrimination
lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores on June 19, 2001 in the U.
S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The lawsuit alleges that female employees
of Wal-Mart are denied advancement and training opportunities,
paid less than men for the same or comparable work, steered
to lower wage departments, subjected to a sexually hostile
work environment and retaliated against when they attempt
to address sex discrimination.
The Wal-Mart case casts a glaring light on
two formidable barriers women still face in the workforce:
the wage gap and the glass ceiling. This lawsuit has already
brought important changes to Wal-Mart’s workers including
women recently hired into senior staff positions, a new job
posting systems for Manager in Training positions, and wide-scale
pay structure adjustments.
The Wal-Mart case gives “wage
disparity” a woman’s
face and in so doing, helps other women, particularly low-wage
women earners, to see themselves as potential victors for
their rights in the workplace. In this time of a widening—not
a shrinking—wage gap, and increasing rates of women’s
poverty, this case is not just well-timed. It is essential.
On February 6, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision certifying a class consisting of all women employed at Wal-Mart’s U.S. facilities any time since December 26, 1998 to the present. The Ninth Circuit described the case as “the largest certified class in history.” In upholding San Francisco District Court Judge Martin Jenkins’ decision, the Ninth Circuit noted that plaintiffs “present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support Plaintiffs’ contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination.”
We have far to go but each ruling in favor of the plaintiffs’ hammers home the message to Wal-Mart that the nation’s largest employer is not exempt from civil rights law.
Much reform is still necessary. In 2001, women at Wal-Mart earned, on average, about $5,200 less than men, and women comprised 14 percent of Wal-Mart’s store managers. In the 2005 “Year of Accomplishments,” report issued by the company, pay comparisons between women and men were glaringly absent. The report also told us that women still comprise only 38 percent of Wal-Mart’s store managers, as compared with the retail industry average of 47.5 percent.
More information on Dukes v. Wal-Mart
Stores:
Case
Docket
Class
Certification Decision
February 2007 ruling
Article in the San Francisco Chronicle
Press Releases
8/03/05—U.S.
Court of Appeals to Hear Wal-Mart’s Appeal from Class
Action Certification Decision in Major Sex Discrimination
Case
6/22/04—Federal
Judge Orders Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Nation’s Largest
Private
Employer, To Stand Trial for Company-Wide Sex Discrimination
4/28/03—Plaintiffs’
Motion for Class Certification Seeks Trial for More Than
1.5 Million Current and Former Wal-Mart Employees
Media Articles
Case Website
www.walmartclass.com
|
|
|
Get the latest ERA news by e-mail. Sign
up today.
June 22, 2004: Federal Judge Martin Jenkins
certifies “historic” class, the largest civil
rights class action ever certified, on behalf nearly two million women who have worked at Wal-Mart anywhere in the
United States since December 26, 1998.
Press Release
Download
Class Certification Decision
If you are a former female Wal-Mart employee
and would like to contact the lawyers, please call 1-877-966-2696
or sign up on www.walmartclass.com.
Si Ud. desea información en Español
sobre esta demanda de la acción de clase contra Wal-Mart,
por favor llámenos al (800) 839-4372
|
|
