Hot on HuffPost:

See More Stories

A Million Women vs. Wal-Mart: Battle May Go to the Supreme Court

1 year ago
  0 Comments Say Something  »
Text Size
NEW YORK -- An epic nine-year battle between a million women and the giant retail chain Wal-Mart is likely to play out soon in the august chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court. In what is shaping up as a David vs. Goliath legal showdown, the world's largest private employer will try to shoot down the largest employment discrimination class-action lawsuit in American history.

So far the legal arguments have not focused on the issue of discrimination against women at Wal-Mart. First, the question to be resolved is whether the million or so women involved in the case actually constitute a class. Wal-Mart lawyers dispute that notion, but a federal district judge in San Francisco ruled against the company in 2004, and in April this year the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the federal judge, ruling to let the case proceed.

Last week, on Aug. 25, Wal-Mart asked the Supreme Court to take the case. If the court tosses it out, the women would have to file lawsuits individually. But if the court takes the case and rules against Wal-Mart, the company could face more than $1 billion in damages and the court's decision would surely set new guidelines for other such lawsuits.

Wal-Mart, Disrimination lawsuitThere's some irony in this saga. Wal-Mart is the mother of all big-box stores. It sucks in female shoppers on tight budgets looking for the best deals for their families. It depends for its riches on low- and middle-income women, who make up the bulk of its customers. It employs a mammoth female workforce, about two-thirds of all its employees. In other words, Wal-Mart is a female-driven enterprise.

Yet, according to the lawsuit, female employees have racked up few benefits, were consistently bypassed for promotion and paid far less than men doing the same jobs. One woman, Stephanie Odle, an assistant manager at a store in California, discovered that a male assistant manager had been earning $23,000 more a year than she was. When Ms. Odle complained to the store's district manager, he reportedly told her, "Stephanie, that assistant manager has a family and two children to support." Ms. Odle herself was a single mother with a 6-month-old to support, she told The New York Times. (Coincidentally, a report this week based on 2008 Census Bureau data shows that single, childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most U.S. cities. But those young women living in big cities hardly fit the profile of many of the women in the Wal-Mart case.)

The lawsuit, known as Dukes v. Wal-Mart, tells many accounts like Ms. Odle's about Wal-Mart's promotion and pay practices. The plaintiffs' attorneys showed that a third of Wal-Mart's managers were women, though two-thirds of its employees overall were women, with many of them overlooked for management training that instead was provided to men. The attorneys also pointed out that men trained by women were often promoted over them. The company has said the women who initiated the lawsuit were not typical of the million women who have worked at Wal-Mart in the last decade. In a statement on Aug. 25, Wal-Mart said that it "has been recognized as a leader in fostering the advancement and success of women in the workplace." In 2000, Wal-Mart was ranked fifth by Fortune magazine on its Global Most Admired All-Stars list, and in 2003 and 2004 as the most admired company in America.

Wal-Mart is unquestionably a shopping monolith. From its lowly origins in 1950 in Bentonville, Ark., in a rural county abutting southern Missouri and eastern Oklahoma, Walton's Five and Dime was the brainchild of Sam Walton, who came up with the idea of achieving higher sales volumes by keeping prices lower than his competitors. Within 10 years it had become Wal-Mart and by the 1970s it was operating in several mid-South states and invading the Southeast. In the 1990s it went wide -- north and west -- and opened its first foreign store, in Mexico City.

Today Wal-Mart is just about everywhere. In fact, its U.S. presence is so huge that there are few parts of the country that remain farther than 60 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart. Approximately 138 million customers visit Wal-Mart stores each week all over the world. Five years ago, Wal-Mart had $312.4 billion in sales, more than 3,800 stores in the United States and employed more than 1.6 million people worldwide.

In the face of such an overpowering force, what's a million women?

The case has a long, winding history. It began in 2001 when seven female employees banded together to protest in court what they saw as the company's systematic discrimination against them in pay and promotions. The seven grew to include hundreds of women and then hundreds of thousands. At the first trial, in 2004, statistics showed that Wal-Mart paid female employees less than men in every region and in most jobs. After the favorable 2004 ruling, the women had to wait six years for the next ruling, at the Ninth Circuit. Finally, in April they heard what they had hoped for, and the case will go on.

Some of the women named in the original lawsuit have left Wal-Mart, but others still work there and have been promoted or received raises, according to The New York Times. Ms. Odle, the first to raise her voice, was fired from Wal-Mart's Sam Club for speaking out. She moved on to other retailers but had a hard time because of her criticism of Wal-Mart. She left and went into business for herself. She has been making a living at Dishing It Up, her take-out shop in Norman, Okla.

The lawsuit is named for Betty Dukes, who began working for Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, Calif., in 1994 and is still there. After 16 years at Wal-Mart, she makes about $31,000 a year. She told The Times it was hard to find another job when you're in the spotlight.

So far the lawsuit has moved slowly, mostly under the radar. It is now becoming national news, and the spotlight will only grow brighter if the women can make their case before the Supreme Court.
Filed Under: Woman Up

Our New Approach to Comments

In an effort to encourage the same level of civil dialogue among Politics Daily’s readers that we expect of our writers – a “civilogue,” to use the term coined by PD’s Jeffrey Weiss – we are requiring commenters to use their AOL or AIM screen names to submit a comment, and we are reading all comments before publishing them. Personal attacks (on writers, other readers, Nancy Pelosi, George W. Bush, or anyone at all) and comments that are not productive additions to the conversation will not be published, period, to make room for a discussion among those with ideas to kick around. Please read our Help and Feedback section for more info.

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum Comment Moderation Enabled. Your comment will appear after it is cleared by an editor.

152 Comments

Filter by:
Jan

Is this the same Wal-Mart that treats its customers are though they are thiefs? I can't tell you how many times I've been stopped by their gestapo after purchasing groceries and asked for my receipt. Can anyone tell me what "probable cause" means?

September 18 2010 at 10:23 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
k5m5b5

I'm not saying that everyone of you do not have a valid point. What I am saying is that as I volunteer in a soup kitchen here in Florida I see week after week food by the hundreds possibly thousands of pounds donated to feed the unemployed, hungry people. I have also been told Wal-Mart has been extremely generous with new underwear and socks for the needy. So, just for the record...this corporation has its faults but it is not the unfeeling monster some try to make it out to be.

September 13 2010 at 12:30 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
johnillgjr

I would go work elsewhere. You are not forced to work there. Don't let Wal-Mart hold you down. Go out and make it on your own.

September 12 2010 at 8:46 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
jbarry40

BOYCOTT WAL-MART! And if you don't care about the workers that toil for this company, do it because they really are a junk store that sells cheap crap.....their no 5 & 10 store.......

September 12 2010 at 5:50 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Beckham Family

Wal-Mart does exactly what consumers expect them to do. Buy cheap merchandise cheaply, then resell it cheaply. When I need a pair of cheap $10 sneakers to stain my deck, I'm not thinking about buying $150 Nike's for the job. I go into Wal-Mart, buy the cheap shoes then discard them 1-2yrs later after I've worn them out. All of the anti Wal-Mart responders on this page seem to forget one very important fact: When there's a Wal-Mart in the area, prices at ALL competitors drop and remain lower than they otherwise would. So even if you choose not to shop at Wal-Mart, you are still getting the benefit of having Wal-Mart in the area. Food stores, toy stores, houseware stores, etc. all shop Wal-Mart and hold their prices as low as they can knowing that most people will shop for better prices (especially today). If you can purposely avoid the low price leader on most retial lines, and don't care about saving money in today's economy, then more power to you! BTW I'm a banker who will not spend more than I have to. If you can afford to spend more for the same merchandise (Wal-Mart is not the only retailer buying from China), I hope you'll remember to make your car loan and/or mortgage payments on time...

September 11 2010 at 7:10 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ROY HOOD

First, I think you have mis-spelled the Wal-Mart name, it should actually be properly named: "China-Mart" so we can put more local retailers out of business and double check how many products in the past two (2) weeks have gone up 60% and give them credit for how stupid people (specially women) are that your getting the best price for (poor quality)products that are only worth the "Cheap" price to start with in the first place. Thank you, Roy Hood

September 11 2010 at 3:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
ktamlyn

Walmart sucks! I HATE shopping at Walmart. They NEVER are supplied properly, never sell any specialty items, you're often stuck with walmart brand because they don't sell other brands, and you can never find anything. I shop at Meijer's. That store rocks and they have a variety of items to choose from. You're not stuck buying their brand.

September 10 2010 at 10:09 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Hi Fran

This lawsuit has done nothing for the equality of promotion for women. Walmart is still promoting men alot faster than women. Out of the last 4 promotions in our store, three were men and one was a woman. All under the age of 25. Apparently oldsters are no longer viable canidates.

September 08 2010 at 5:03 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
bremfraser

Yeah the union made it possible for stores like Walmart to prosper. It made the cost of item made in USA to expensive and poorly made so they had to be constantly replaced. The local stores had no union, it was the larger stores staffed by union workers in union towns that drove the prices up and caused the need for discounters. Friendly town Barber 3 bucks for a haircut conversation free, union takes over 9 bucks and extra if you want to hang out. Firefighters, respected and paid a fair amount, now a 35,000 year job out of High School with a pension of 40,000 after 25 years but there in a union. Everyone was willing to pay some fat ass 5 to 10% of their great wage to buy politicians and live the good life. That is where the need for the Walmart came from. Lots of people , mostly hardworking , but under the unions radar had to find a way to get what they needed, without the money or help of that special class of people that the union created for there own benefit.

September 08 2010 at 1:36 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
Carole Ann

I perfer to do without, than lower myself to shop at Wal-Mart. They go into towns, put small shops, who can't compete, out of business, they buy poor quality from China, they discriminate against women and their stores are dirty. Yep, I prefer to do without many things so I can afford to shop at decent stores.

September 08 2010 at 1:12 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply

Follow Politics Daily


  • Comics
robert-and-donna-trussell
CHAOS THEORY
Featuring political comics by Robert and Donna TrussellMore>>
  • Woman UP Video
politics daily videos
Weekly Videos
Woman Up, Politics Daily's Online Sunday ShowMore»
politics daily videos
TV Appearances
Showcasing appearances by Politics Daily staff and contributors.More>>