If you believe Justice Scalia, who wrote for the Supreme Court's majority opinion in yesterday's Wal-Mart ruling, there is "no convincing proof of a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy."
Tell that to all the women who have worked for Wal-Mart. The company has gotten away with its discriminatory culture by playing it both ways: it has a policy on the books barring discrimination but it leaves individual store managers operating in a culture where discrimination is widely accepted.
One case in a small town near me stands out -- and I learned of it first from my own mother, who knows the family involved.
Pharmacist Cynthia Haddad, of Pittsfield, Massachusetts in 2007, won a $2 million lawsuit against Wal-Mart, where she had worked for 10 years. In that case, Massachusetts lawyer and employment practices expert Julie Moore testified on behalf of Haddad, suggesting that Wal-Mart's policies and practices "contributed to the gender discrimination that culminated in this pharmacy manager's termination."
The retailer fired Haddad claiming that a fraudulent prescription had been filled when she left the pharmacy unattended.
Haddad was able to show that Wal-Mart had axed her because she had demanded that they pay her the same manager's salary that her male colleagues earned. Oh, and about that fraudulent prescription? It was filed a year and a half before Haddad was fired -- she'd never even been told about her so-called mistake.
In 2009, Massachusetts' Supreme Judicial Court upheld the verdict in this precedent-setting case.
The idea that an individual woman could sue the wildly powerful Wal-Mart and WIN $2 million is one heck of an inspiring story in a small Massachusetts town. Haddad, the mother of four children, told Business Week magazine that the lawsuit was no picnic. Still, Haddad had a lot going for her. She was a relatively well-paid professional and her husband, Bill, is also a pharmacist. She had the education, intellectual wherewithal, financial independence -- and the guts -- to complain in the first place, and then to mount a lawsuit after she was unjustly fired.
But that's not the situation for so many other low-income cashiers and hourly employees who aren't in such privileged positions. So many women don't have the luxury to dare risk losing their jobs by filing a complaint. Those are the women who have been screwed by the five men in the court's majority.
Well, so, when we have this conservative Supreme Court handing down rulings like this, we need more inspiring stories. But it's hard these days to find stories. Or hope.
Follow Claudia Ricci on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RicciCJ
Suppose 72 percent of the company's hourly sales employees were men and most of the managers were women. Since women's advocates now ignore Walmart's current, real hiring discrimination against men, doesn't this mean the advocates would ignore women's dominance in Walmart's management and claim that a 72-percent male sales staff proves hiring discrimination against women? Wouldn't this hiring discrimination in fact now be the basis for the class-action lawsuit against Walmart?
For a primary reason Walmart has more male managers than female, see:
"Taking Apart the Sex-Bias Class-Action Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart" at http://tinyurl.com/lnn3xn or at http://malemattersusa.com/2011/06/21/taking-apart-the-walmart-sex-bias-class-action-lawsuit/
The problem with a class action lawsuit is that this runs the risk of taking a problem that impacts only 1 out of every 1000 employees and penalizing them as if this applies to all.
what if half of the class action participants are lying? does this mean that half the problem is gone? Or maybe its entirely gone?
So where does that leave individual rights in America? It's largely a simulation. We have the appearance of fairness without its substance.
All plaintiffs' rights should be adequately supported by government funded litigation services such that rights are advanced with the government bearing the negative returns. Justice will have been done only when those negative returns reach the zero point or possibly extend above zero. So ultimately in a system with substantive individual rights that are truly meaningful litigation would eventually become truly self funding.
Class action suits are unnecessary. They only serve to gain the support of a handful of lawyers who support the status quo in exchange for the occasional bonanza.
The law in its current state is a matrix.
There are consequenses for all our actions.
Imagine the message it would send to Wal-Mart execs--let alone the rest of the world--if the tens of thousands of women who allege such wrongdoing all walked out this week.
I say, stop whining and do something constructive. No person should choose to stay in any abusive relationship.
Ever.
"Still, Haddad had a lot going for her. She was a relatively well-paid professional and her husband, Bill, is also a pharmacist. She had the education, intellectual wherewithal, financial independence -- and the guts -- to complain in the first place, and then to mount a lawsuit after she was unjustly fired.
But that's not the situation for so many other low-income cashiers and hourly employees who aren't in such privileged positions. So many women don't have the luxury to dare risk losing their jobs by filing a complaint. Those are the women who have been screwed by the five men in the court's majority."
They might see justice if they get to court - it's their chances of getting that far individually that are minimal.
She came home in tears because she was made to punch out but stay late and work off the clock to finish cleaning out a fitting room.
It took her 40 minutes, she was late getting her kids at the bus stop (another mom kept the kids until she got home from work).
She couldn't complain, because the fitting room needed to be cleaned, but she was so upset about the extra time and the punching out to work for free.
She still works there, but I haven't shopped there since.
They can't be fined a large settlement because the employee is poorly paid, or they keep paying the employee low wages.
but hey...I understand...facts have a liberal bias