“Betty v. Goliath”

Wow, what an eye opener for me.

I’ll be honest , I knew this case was out there, but I really failed to look at it hard, mostly because I worked with one of the initial plaintiffs, and thought her not a very credible person due to the fact she created much upheaval in the store by doing things (some very wrong things) for which she was eventually terminated .

So I left this case on a backburner over the years, thinking yes it was big, but it was jaded (in my mind) by my direct experience with one of the litigants, thinking it would probably be settled without much ado.
I had not followed the case, and remained ignorant of the facts and statistics, until I began ‘noodling’ around the pdf here, which led me to further info on the class action web site.

Self avowed numbers and statistics freak that I am, I was bowled over not by the lower level hourly and salary variances, but by Drogin’s table of Higher-Level jobs when it came to earnings by women doing equivalent jobs at the executive and middle management level, and those variances.
These variances were quite shocking, so shocking in fact I had to reread the data several times, to see if I was seeing it correctly.

Apparently in 2001 Wal*Mart thought so poorly of its women Regional Vice-Presidents it paid them a whopping average of 50% less?
Now before we get those of you ‘up in arms’ to preach axioms such as ‘Performance Based Compensation’, do you really believe these ladies were such ‘losers’ at their jobs, versus the men?
Perhaps they were given less performing regions to start with?

How about District Manager females? A stout middle management job.
They averaged a what?
35% less average income than their male counterparts.
Clearly something is amiss with this program, you think?

Field management, Store managers, over 3000 of them, the women store managers averaged 18% less income than their male counterparts.

There is an almost logarithmic scale of variance, from the executive levels, down to field management, including assistants, trainees, and finally hourly. This does not bode well in a litigation.

Certainly while Drogin’s analysis is based on 2001metrics, so is this lawsuit.
Makes no difference where the numbers are now.
Even some criminals get death row religion.

I bet that some of these VP, District Manager, and Store Manager women have a secret place in their hearts, (where because of their income and stature cannot step out) that eventually this ‘playing field’
Is eventually leveled.

I have read almost all of this lawsuit (I believe it was over 500 pages, probably closer to l,000 by now) and it is hard to establish (in my mind) a complete basis for the suit.

Yes there are many questionable areas, but I honestly think the lawyers are really hoping to make a killing (for themselves) if this is ever ajudicated.

The way the court system works, this could be several more years before the end result is finalized.  For myself only, I honestly don’t know which way it will go.  After I read some more of the briefs, etc. maybe I will know more.

Any of you interested in law, might like to read this suit.

Walmart is not the company it used to be. I am not happy with them anymore.

knowledgeable wrote: “...it is hard to establish (in my mind) a complete basis for the suit.”

The suit is based on a “statistically significant” variance in Wal-Mart employment records indicating a history of discrimination against women.

How ‘knowledgeable’ can you be to read that report and not see frank sex discrimination?

Read the entire lawsuit as filed in the Federal Court and then you might understand my post.  Everything that is posted on here and then the lawsuit, in and of itself, are generally different.  Rather than a lot of conjecture I will leave this one up to the courts, they have the time to sift it out.

I’ve read the suit and the extensive analysis of Wal-Mart’s records.  I could understand some question in your mind about the class certification of the suit, but the basis is there in black and white.

I’m afraid you’ve fallen into that trap again, knowledgeable; trying to sound knowledgeable when your not.

Irregardless of whether Wal*Mart succeeds at getting the class action de-certified, it loses.
The die is now cast (or caste?). They are in a captive, classic, ‘catch 22’ scenario.

Perhaps this is why they (Wal*Mart) are furiously trying to reach a settlement agreement.
Which in my opinion will not happen, for the reason the plaintiffs hold an unbeatable 4 Ace hand.
I think they are much more socially motivated than we suspect.

The plaintiffs, at this point, have nothing to lose. The statistical facts are out, on record, and numbers do not lie.
The more Wal*Mart struggles with facts, the more ‘discovery’ buries them.

Even if ‘settlement’ was achieved , it would amount to millions of dollars paid to a handful of original litigants and lawyers.
Yeah, right. Like the other ‘class’ litigants who joined up for the case, will just fade away?
Legally Wal*Mart can only settle with the original litigants, for if they did otherwise would
abrogate their original claim for class de-certification, and re-open litigations.

Wal*Mart has gotten itself into what we chess players call a ‘fork’.
‘Ain’t’ no way out without loss.

Should the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, overturn the lower court in California, and the class action suit be de-certified, Wal *Mart still loses.
It loses because the plaintiffs, co-joined by a new energized class of disaffected workers, and a network of hungry attorneys will begin to file suit, state by state, store by individual store.
These discrimination suits will disrupt Wal*Mart’s business for years, costing again millions of dollars.

Best I can see, Wal*Mart is truly ’forked’, no matter the circuit court opinion.

Its best solution may be to drop any defense, succumb to an independent review board, make restitution, revamp HR policies, amortize these costs, and get on with business.

“If you find yourself in a hole…quit digging”. anon.

How do I get into that class action suit? I am a x employee of Wal-Marts and I was definatly passed over for promotion due to my sex! several times!