PDA

View Full Version : Wal-Mart Asks Supreme Court To Deny Class-Action Suit By Female Workers



Psychoblues
03-27-2011, 11:04 PM
Here is one where the SCOTUS can really show it's meddle for the corps. Wal-Mart has deliberately, repeatedly and clearly discriminated against women for as long as there has been a Wal-Mart. Sam Walton was a pretty good guy but even he was old school as hell but he could never hold a candle to his evil and greedy kids and their cohorts in power at Wal-Mart now. And I am a first hand and highly knowledgeable and credible witness for this case.

Source: Washington Post

by: Robert Barnes

Like the retail behemoth at its center, everything about the Supreme Court extravaganza known as Wal-Mart v. Dukes is super-sized.

The number of women who could be included in the sex discrimination class-action suit is measured in millions. The amount of damages for which the nation’s largest private employer could be liable is estimated in billions.

If the Supreme Court agrees the case can move forward, it would be the largest employment discrimination class-action suit in U.S. history. As Wal-Mart likes to point out, the suit could include more people than the number now serving in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard combined. Oral arguments are scheduled for Tuesday.

The prospect of such a massive lawsuit — or, alternatively, a ruling that hobbles workers from mounting class-action suits against large, national employers — has drawn an outpouring of competing briefs from corporate America and the nation’s leading civil rights groups.

The suit, filed by six female Wal-Mart employees in 2001, will also spotlight two intriguing story lines about the Supreme Court.

One is the perception, reinforced by President Obama, congressional Democrats and civil rights groups, that the court is overly protective of the corporate world. There is evidence to support the claim as well as exceptions, but there seems little doubt about how a ruling for Wal-Mart would be portrayed by liberal groups already suspicious of the court and the huge company........................................... .................................................. .................................................. ...................................

Much More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/wal_mart_asks_supreme_court_not_to_allow_class_act ion_suit_by_female_employees_alleging_discriminati on/2011/03/25/AFTMXokB_story.html

As I understand it even if the SCOTUS caves to the corps in this case then the case is still not dead. It will simply be fought on much smaller and much more collectively expensive scales. As always, I hope to see justice done.

Psychochoblues

logroller
03-29-2011, 11:48 AM
Roll backs aren't just about price; suffrage too.:laugh:

crin63
03-29-2011, 07:56 PM
Well if the women were home cooking, cleaning and taking care of the kids this wouldn't be an issue now would it? :salute:

Kathianne
03-29-2011, 08:04 PM
Doesn't seem the court was impressed with the class action motions:

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-court-walmart-20110330,0,173597.story


Supreme Court appears poised to reject class action in Wal-Mart sex-bias case
The majority of men on the court question how Wal-Mart could be found liable for illegal sex bias when its 3,400 store managers decide who gets promoted and who receives pay raises.

By James Oliphant and David G. Savage, Los Angeles Times

March 30, 2011

Reporting from Washington
Advertisement

Supreme Court justices, sharply divided along gender lines, appeared poised to reject a nationwide class-action suit that accuses Wal-Mart Stores Inc. of sex discrimination.

Led by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Antonin Scalia, the majority of men on the court questioned how Wal-Mart could be held liable for illegal sex bias when its 3,400 store managers across the nation decide who gets promoted and who receives pay raises.

"It's not clear to me: What's the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted?" Kennedy asked. The company's written policy calls for equal treatment without regard to race or sex...

DragonStryk72
03-29-2011, 08:51 PM
Okay, I'm gonna highlight two points from the article:


Also notable is that the case — featuring charges by women of unequal pay, sexist remarks and insurmountable obstacles to promotion.

I've worked for Wal-mart, at several locations, and I've had a few female managers, both out on the sales floors, and in the receiving area unloading trucks. What, I just ran into every exception to the rule?


The average difference in annual pay between male and female workers, he said, was a little more than $1,000

Okay, so let's do the math: $1000 dollars a year, divided by 52 weeks in a year. $19.23 a week less on average than male counterparts, and that's before tax is applied. Divided over 32 hours (Wal-mart's version of part-time), that would be a $0.60 an hour's difference. At Full-time, 40 hours a week, it's $0.48/hour, so we'll call it roughly a .54/hr difference. Know what that's equal too? Two merit raises given somewhat regularly at Wal-Mart.

Everything else at Wal-Mart is done through pay grades. For instance, working in the photo lab is a higher pay grade job than unloading is, so it pays more. Overnights get shift differential, you make an extra $1 an hour when you work Sundays (yes, that stack with the shift differential), and everything else are individual pay raises based on work performance. Even those though, are pre-determined. You "meet expectations" you get X raise, you "Exceed expectations" you get Y raise. It's preset, so there's no gender point about it.