Issue link: http://cp.revolio.com/i/30780
law I DISCRIMINATION Class Act, Glass Ceiling T HIS SPRING, RETAIL GIANT Wal-Mart will attempt to con- vince the U.S. Supreme Court that one of the largest class-action lawsuits in history—comprised of 1.6 million women who are former or current employees of Wal-Mart and its offshoot Sam’s Club—should not be permitted to go forward to trial. Initially filed in June 2001 on behalf of six plaintiffs, the suit alleges that Wal-Mart’s women employees have been denied advancement and train- ing opportunities, paid less than men for the same or comparable work, steered to departments that pay lower wages and retaliated against when they bring up sex discrimination. With a case of this magnitude, the rights of all workers hang in the bal- ance. “If the Supreme Court upsets the lower courts’ [decision to accept the class-action designation]…em- ployers all over the country will have been handed a powerful new tool to evade the law and avoid giving their female employees nondiscriminatory treatment,” says Marcia Greenberger, co-founder and co-president of the National Women’s Law Center. The plaintiffs in Dukes v. Wal-Mart (named after original plaintiff Betty Dukes, a 2004 Ms. Woman of the Year) charged that personnel deci- sions at Wal-Mart are exercised with- in a corporate culture infested with demeaning gender stereotypes. For example, the plaintiffs declare that Wal-Mart management approved male managers holding business meetings at Hooters, and that they www.msmagazine.com Betty Dukes, the original Wal-Mart plaintiff4 were told women were not represent- ed in top positions within the compa- ny because men are more aggressive in seeking advancement. Plaintiff Christine Kwapnoski was informed that men needed to be paid more than women because “they have families to support.” Women workers were re- ferred to as “girls,” “housewives” and “squatters” (someone who squats to pee), and one Wal-Mart manager re- portedly said that the role of female assistant managers was to give women associates (the sales staff) someone to discuss their periods with. All such practices, say the plain- tiffs, violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the federal law that makes it unlawful for employers with 15 or more employees to dis- criminate based on gender. The plaintiffs want Wal-Mart to reform their practices, pay damages for lost wages and benefits, and pay punitive damages. The Wal-Mart case is especially BY JUSTINE F. ANDRONICI AND DEBRA S. KATZ After 10 years, the Wal-Mart sex-discrimination case finally makes it to the Supreme Court critical during these difficult eco- nomic times. “Women still are paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to men, but for women in sales, the wage gap is even steeper—64 cents on the dollar,” Greenberger points out. “At Wal-Mart, there was evi- dence that, overall, women were paid $5,000 less than men per year, even though on average they had higher performance ratings in hourly jobs and more years of employment.” Adds Arcelia Hurtado, co-counsel in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case and ex- ecutive director of the San Francisco- based nonprofit Equal Rights Advocates, “Equal pay for equal work is a basic civil right in this country. Every day across the country women are denied this right and effectively told their work has less value. This case stands for the collective right of every working woman to be paid what her work is worth.” Wal-Mart has successfully delayed this landmark sex-discrimination case BEN MARGOT/AP PHOTO