iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Martha Burk

Martha Burk

GET UPDATES FROM Martha Burk

Wal-Mart's Woman Troubles -- Too Big to Be Sued?

Posted: 03/28/11 05:58 PM ET

Seven years ago a judge in California ruled that women suing Wal-Mart for sex discrimination could move forward as a class. That meant the women with various claims wouldn't have to go it alone, each with a separate lawyer and separate expenses. Essentially what the judge said is that the six women who filed the lawsuit can represent a whole group of women who might have similar complaints -- all 1.6 million of them.

Wal-Mart appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. Taking a page from the big bank playbook, the company claims that it is too big to be sued.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday as to whether the class certification stands. If so, Dukes v. Walmart will be the largest class action suit in history. Then if women can prove a "pattern and practice" of discrimination at Wally Mart, back pay and promotions could be due, and the company might have to mend its gender-biased ways. If the Supremes rule against them, it could mean the end to redress for sex discrimination at work.

Well, OK. Gender bias hasn't been proven yet. But look at the numbers: According to walmartclass.com, close to 70% of the employees are women, but less than a third of the managers are female (up from 14.3% when the suit was filed in 2001). The rest are concentrated in the lowest level jobs. Data presented by the plaintiffs showed that 93% of cashier positions were held by women, and they made less than the male cashiers ($13,800 and $14,500 respectively). It doesn't get any better at the higher levels, where the few women who made it to store manager earned average of $89,300, while the guys pulled down $105,700.

Data from the past couple of years are not available -- if Walmart has corrected the problem, it doesn't want the world to know about it. And even if 100% of the wage discrimination has gone away (and cows can do cartwheels), it won't erase the damage to the women with short paychecks over several past decades.

One of the women in the suit, a single mother working as an assistant manager, was told, according to walmartclass.com, that a male in the same position making $10,000 more a year was paid more because he had "a wife and kids to support." When she protested, she was asked to submit a personal household budget -- and got a $40 a week raise. Looks like a duck to me.

Most people don't know that the majority of the working poor, and Wal-Mart is responsible for a bunch of them, are adult women. They're also mostly white (58%) and mostly high school educated or higher (77%).

Wal-Mart is ranked second in the Fortune 500, and is the nation's largest non-government employer. Members of the Walton family hold four of the top ten positions on the Forbes list of the 400 richest Americans, with assets of over $80 billion. If they gave up just a measly nickel on the dollar, they could raise the wages of their approximately 869,000 female workers by over $2.20 per hour -- enough to lift many of those lowest paid women above the poverty line -- and just incidentally keep the company out of the courthouse.

Of course Wal-Mart is entitled to a fair profit, as are all businesses. But the key word is fair. If corporations are entitled to the most profit they can possibly make, we should go ahead and abolish the minimum wage and repeal our employment discrimination laws, or maybe just go back to slavery and forget about paying workers altogether.

In granting the female employees the right to stand together against the largest company in the nation, the lower court has took a small step for womankind. Let's hope the Roberts Corporate Court doesn't knock the feet out from under those same women, and gut over 40 years of precedent in the process.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rory talbot
Former Dem but they r now wing of Corp. party
12:01 PM on 03/29/2011
Here in Texas, Walmart is UNDEFEATED in the Texas Supreme Court. The first thing out of their mouths when sued or in mediation is "you may beat us at trial but you'll never hold onto your verdict with the all-Republican Supreme Court." it's disgusting.
09:55 AM on 03/29/2011
"The value of Labor to Capital is subsistence." Wal Mart is merely trying to prove Karl Marx right. Without a strong labor union wage slavery at Wal Mart will continue, for both genders.
09:29 AM on 03/29/2011
What about the obvious men's lawsuit? Men are 50 percent of the population yet Walmart only has 30 percent male employees. Obviously Walmart discriminates against men in hiring
This American
An end to all this nonsense
10:05 AM on 03/29/2011
There are many things that cause one group to be underrepresented in one field and overrepresented in another field . Once we declare under representation of a protected group in a "desire-able" field to be per-se the result of discrimination, we have really opened up Pandora's box. And we wonder why jobs are moving to China.
photo
RodneyMesriani
California Los Angeles lawyer civil
03:38 AM on 03/29/2011
The figures are atrocious -- in case Wal-mart didn't know, men and women who perform substantially the same jobs should be given equal pay. So why is there a huge disparity between male and female cashiers? Why do male managers earn more than their female counterparts. Clearly, this is gender discrimination at its finest, or worst, considering that Wal-mart has billions of dollars but refuse to pay women their due.

http://www.mesrianilaw.com/Women-On-Top-How-To-Get-Equal-Pay-And-A-Promotion.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Honey Bucket
11:06 PM on 03/28/2011
I sure hope the women win. How greedy are the Waltons?
11:05 PM on 03/28/2011
What's even more offence to me as a women, is not that Wal Mart wants to jip women to make more profit, but that there are many people online who think women are trying to just extort Wal-Mart for profit! Apparently in these numerous opinions, woman just don't have as great a work ethic and therefore deserve less pay even if they've been a loyal employee for much longer than the freshly hired men. This im more appalling and scary than Walmart trying to bank an extra buck.

"Women make less money because they don't work as well or as hard as men. Largely due to needing to take care of kids and enter/leave the workforce more often. "
It takes a man and a woman to make a child, but of course.. only a woman to RAISE that child. fair,fair,fair.
01:25 AM on 03/29/2011
Just to make it a bit clearer, i'm not saying women aren't asking for money from Wal-Mart.. just that they aren't extorting* them to do so.
The money has already been earned by women.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
TheAntitheist
Four legs Good
07:02 AM on 04/01/2011
This decision has absolutely zero to do with gender. They are not arguing the Tort itself.
08:11 PM on 03/28/2011
If these are the jobs that are gonna be created by giving tax cuts to the rich, I'll pass thanks...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Keith E
Earth Warrior
07:15 PM on 03/28/2011
Just another example of the rich taking from the poor, Yay,....Capitalism!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RickMoss
07:14 PM on 03/28/2011
The more I live the I laugh. Is this what America has come to.

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM
OsiXs (Revolution 2.0)