With the assistance of ERA and co-counsel, Professor Bhattacharya filed charges with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and sexual orientation.  After receiving ERA’s complaint, Pitzer College reversed its previous position and awarded Professor Bhattacharya tenure.  ERA continues to work with co-counsel from Campins Benham-Baker, LLP to resolve Professor Bhattacharya’s pay discrimination claims.  Professor Bhattacharya alleges that she experienced ongoing pay discrimination from the outset of her employment at the College. She asserts that, despite having four years of prior tenure-track experience, the College placed her in an entry-level pay grade, and has paid her less than male professors with similar experience and qualifications throughout her employment at Pitzer.

According to Professor Bhattacharya: “I am surprised that a college that so strongly articulates a commitment to social responsibility would not be more concerned with investigating and addressing unequal treatment and would not work harder to maintain a fair, consistent, clear, and transparent process with respect to faculty promotions. I hope that changes will be made so that all junior faculty at the institution, particularly women and women of color, are not subjected to what I have gone through.”

ERA is continuing to take on gender discrimination in schools and colleges and the workplace in collaboration with sister organizations across the country, including the American Association of University Women.

After the U.S. Supreme Court moved to decertify a class of more than 1 million women workers at the retail giant in 2011, ERA and its co-counsel filed a new suit against Wal-Mart in San Francisco on behalf of thousands of women at store locations across the West alleging that the company’s pay and promotion practices discriminate against women because of their sex. That suit was given the greenlight to proceed by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer last year. Read more about Breyer’s decision here.

In the coming months, ERA and new co-counsel Hadsell, Stormer, Richardson & Renick intend to file a motion to certify the class before Judge Breyer.

“It is imperative that we fill the gaps in existing laws so that women receive equal pay for equal work,” stated Noreen Farrell, Executive Director of Equal Rights Advocates. Farrell made her comments today at an event in San Francisco also featuring House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressmen George Miller and other advocacy groups and workers celebrating passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Four years ago today, President Obama signed the Ledbetter Act into law to ensure that the time limit for bringing pay discrimination claims would renew with each discriminatory paycheck (rather than be tied to when the employer first started discriminating). But in an economy where women earn, on average, 77 cents for every dollar men earn, and women on color fare far worse, with African American women earning 64 cents and Latinas 55 cents for each dollar earned by a white man, the fight for pay equity is far from over. The Paycheck Fairness Act updates and strengthens the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and would give women the tools they need to challenge this prevailing (and embarrassing) wage gap.

As co-counsel representing plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the class action lawsuit addressing discriminatory pay practices by the nation’s largest retailer, Equal Rights Advocates is deeply committed to achieving wage justice for working women. The Paycheck Fairness Act would help by clearly prohibiting pay secrecy policies that are currently imposed by many employers and were faced by the plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart case, along with many other low wage workers. Pay secrecy policies prevent employees from gaining information necessary to enforce their rights to earn equal pay for equal work, and the Paycheck Fairness Act would help eradicate such policies.

The wage gap results in thousands of dollars in lost income for America’s women and families each year. It hurts women, their families and our economy. Equal Rights Advocates urges the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act to help working women achieve wage justice. It is time for the administration and Congress to take action to advance this important goal.

Contact: Noreen Farrell, Executive Director, nfarrell@equalrights.org
Work (415.575.2398); cell (510.701.8243)

About ERA: Equal Rights Advocates (ERA), founded in 1974, is a national civil rights organization dedicated to protecting and expanding economic and educational access and opportunities for women and girls. Through its campaign approach—incorporating public education, legislative advocacy, and litigation—ERA seeks to assist women and girls throughout a life-long continuum: ensuring equality in their educational experience, combating sex discrimination in the workforce, and advocating for workplaces hospitable to working families. To learn more about ERA’s work, visit www.equalrights.org.

Full press release here:  Major Victory for ATT Women

Full press release here:  Judge rules women will have their day in court

Full press release here:  California Paid Family Leave Law benefits thousands

The class action lawsuit, filed June 2001, charges Wal-Mart with systematically discriminating against its female employees in promotions, compensation, and training in its over 3300 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club retail stores nationwide. Although women comprise more than 70% of Wal-Mart’s sales workforce nationwide, less than one-third of store management overall at Wal-Mart is female—a percentage lower than the number of female management employed by Wal-Mart’s major competitors in 1975.In December 2001, Judge Jenkins rejected Wal-Mart’s earlier effort to transfer the case to the company’s headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas or to dismiss it entirely.The judge described the request as ñtoo harshî and ñnot in the interests of justice.îHe ruled that the California plaintiffs could represent the nationwide class in this forum.

The five new California plaintiffs are: Edith Arana, a resident of Los Angeles County, who was employed by Wal-Mart from 1995 until October 2001; Christine Kwapnoski, a resident of Concord who has been an employee of Wal-Mart’s subsidiary, Sam’s Club, since 1986; Cleo Page, an Oklahoma woman who worked at a Wal-Mart in Livermore; Deborah Gunter, a resident of Riverside County who worked at three different Wal-Mart stores in California; and Karen Williamson of Butte County who worked at the Wal-Mart store in Pleasanton.

ñThis is a tremendous victory and one which will allow thousands more women to seek justice for the workplace discrimination that they have experienced at Wal-Mart. It is truly unacceptable for the top ranked Fortune 500 company to discriminate against its female workers in this way.îBrad Seligman, lead attorney for the women, said today.

The women are represented by The Impact Fund (Berkeley), Equal Rights Advocates (San Francisco), Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (Washington D.C.), Davis, Cowell & Bowe (San Francisco), and Tinkler & Bennett (Santa Fe, New Mexico).

Attachment: Summaries of new plaintiffs claims

Christine Kwapnoski, an employee of Sam’s Club since 1986, was repeatedly denied promotions to higher-level positions.Even though she expressed her desire to advance to higher-level positions on numerous occasions, Wal-Mart’s practice of not posting job announcements resulted in denying Ms. Kwapnoski the opportunity to compete for the promotions.In fact, she was required to train several of the less qualified men who got the promotions in order for them to assume responsibilities as her boss.After 16 years of service to Wal-Mart, Ms. Kwapnoski’s request for a managerial position was approved only after this lawsuit was filed, but she continues to be denied the opportunities given men in the store.

Cleo Page, an African-American woman who worked at a Wal-Mart in Livermore, suffered discrimination in terms of promotions and compensation due to her gender and race.On two occasions, she applied for a Support Manager position and was denied despite her qualifications.Ms. Page was also discouraged from applying for the position of Department Manager of Sporting Goods when her store manager said she wanted a male in that position because customers felt more comfortable buying sporting goods from a man.Ms. Page later learned that the male Department Manager in Sporting Goods earned approximately $4 an hour more than she earned, despite the fact that she had more seniority than he had.

One of the new plaintiffs, Edith Arana, was an employee of the Duarte, California store for six years.She experienced sex discrimination and retaliation. Ms. Arana, who holds significant retail experience, repeatedly expressed interest in applying for the Assistant Manager Training Program. Even though her supervisor promised he would recommend her for the training program, he never did.On two occasions, Ms. Arana applied for the position of Paper Goods and Chemicals Department Manager.Although it is Wal-Mart’s policy to interview every applicant, she was not interviewed and a man was selected both times to fill the position.  After six years of observing the store manager’s refusal to interview women who applied for department manager positions in departments considered ñmen’s departmentsî such as the Paper Goods and Chemicals Department, Ms. Arana complained about the discriminatory practices via Wal-Mart’s complaint hotline.After complaining about the Store Manager’s discriminatory treatment, she was retaliated against and transferred to a less desirable position.

Deborah Gunter, another new plaintiff, had 30 years of retail experience before she began working for Wal-Mart.She worked at three different stores in California:in Riverside, Perris, and Lake Elsinore. Ms. Gunter was discriminated against in several promotions that she applied for, and was sexually harassed.While employed at the Riverside store, Ms. Gunter applied several times for the Department Manager of Pets but was denied.Twice, Wal-Mart selected a male with less experience.While employed in the Perris store, Ms. Gunter sought promotion to Support Manager of the Tire Lube Express department.She was not selected.Instead, Wal-Mart selected two male employees whom Ms. Gunter had trained.While employed at the Lake Elsinore store, once again, Ms. Gunter trained a male employee who was then promoted to Support Manager of the Tire Lube Express.Ms. Gunter was terminated after she called Wal-Mart’s district office to complain about her treatment.

Karen Williamson, began her employment at Wal-Mart in 1995 when she helped open the Pleasanton store.Throughout her employment, she expressed interest in being promoted to Department Manager but was never promoted despite her qualifications.Ms. Williamson often trained new department managers. Ms. Williamson did not have the opportunity to apply for some positions because contrary to Wal-Mart policies, these positions were not always posted.

All of the women involved in this case hope that Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores will result in Wal-Mart changing their practices and becoming a place of employment where female employees are treated fairly and equally.

####