|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
News :: Civil & Human Rights : Gender and Sexuality : Labor : Political-Economy |
|
Judge Certifies Suit Accusing Wal-Mart of Sex Discrimination |
Current rating: 0 |
by Steven Greenhouse
(No verified email address) |
22 Jun 2004
|
|
Judge Jenkins, who took nine months to issue the ruling, wrote, "Plaintiffs present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women." |
A federal judge today granted class-action status in a sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, creating a class of up to 1.6 million women, making it the largest employment discrimination lawsuit against a company in United States history.
The lawsuit, brought three years ago in San Francisco, asserts that Wal-Mart, the nation's largest company, systematically discriminated against women in pay and promotions. The lawsuit noted that while 65 percent of Wal-Mart's employees were women when the lawsuit was filed, only 33 percent of Wal-Mart's managers were women.
Judge Martin Jenkins, of the United States District Court in Northern California, wrote that the case was "historic in nature, dwarfing other employment discrimination cases that came before it."
Wal-Mart officials said they planned to appeal the ruling, which would include nearly all women who have worked at Wal-Mart since December 1998.
"Let's keep in mind that today's ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case," said Mona Williams, Wal-Mart's vice president for communications. "Judge Jenkins is simply saying he thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward as a class action. We strongly disagree with his decision and will seek an appeal."
Lawyers for Wal-Mart, which has 3,586 stores across the United States, had urged the judge to deny class certification, arguing that the class would be too large and unwieldy to handle in a single case. With more than 1.2 million employees in the United States, Wal-Mart employs more women and more workers than any other American company.
In trading this morning on the New York Stock Exchange, Wal-Mart's share price fell by 97 cents, or 1.8 percent, to $53.96.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the class certification decision would pressure Wal-Mart to improve its treatment of women. "Certification of this class shows that no employer, not even the world's largest private employer, is above the law," said Joseph M. Sellers, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "This decision sets the stage for women at Wal-Mart to get their fair share of pay and promotions, which have been denied them for years."
To make the case about large pay disparities, an expert hired by the plaintiffs, Richard Drogin, an emeritus statistics professor at California State University at Hayward, found that full-time female hourly employees working at least 45 weeks at Wal-Mart earned about $1,150, or 6.2 percent less per year, than men in similar jobs. He found that female store managers made $89,290 a year on average, $16,400 less than men store managers.
Another plaintiffs' expert, William T. Bielby, a sociology professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara, found that women make up 89.5 percent of Wal-Mart's cashiers and 79 percent of its department heads, an hourly, non-managerial position. He also found that women make up 37.6 percent of assistant store managers and 15.5 percent of store managers. The lawsuit asserted that at 20 other large retailers, 57 percent of the managers were women.
Judge Jenkins, who took nine months to issue the ruling, wrote, "Plaintiffs present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women."
Judge Jenkins wrote that the case, Betty Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, should be certified as a nationwide class because the plaintiffs had shown that there were significant legal and factual issues concerning Wal-Mart's alleged discriminatory practices, including gender stereotyping and a culture of corporate uniformity.
Asserting that there was no corporate-wide policy promoting sex discrimination, Wal-Mart's lawyers had argued before Judge Jenkins that it would have been preferable to allow individual class actions against individual stores.
Wal-Mart officials noted today that on June 4, the company's chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., announced a new job classification and pay structure, which company officials said was designed in part to ensure fairness in pay and promotions.
Ms. Williams, the Wal-Mart spokeswoman, said, "While we cannot comment on the specifics of the litigation, we can say we continue to evaluate our employment practices."
Noting that this year was the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision, Judge Jenkins wrote, "This anniversary serves as a reminder of the importance of the courts in addressing the denial of equal treatment under the law whenever and by whomever it occurs."
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com |
Copyright by the author. All rights reserved. |
