The Women Of Wal-Mart Will Have Their Day In Court

The women of Wal-Mart will have their day in court. That was the upshot of the court ruling that rocked the foundations in Bentonville, Arkansas.

On June 21, 2001, Sprawl-Busters reported that six women had sued Wal-Mart, charging the company with systematically discriminating against hundreds of thousands of female “associates” in Wal-Mart and Sam’s Clubs nationwide. The court case became widely known as Dukes V. Wal-Mart, after the lead defendant, Betty Dukes. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco.

Three years later, in June of 2004, the District Court judge ruled that the case could be certified as a class action lawsuit, and would cover all women workers at Wal-Mart from Christmas of 1998, to the present. As many as 1.6 million workers could be included in the class of plaintiffs in this case. In November of 2004, Wal-Mart appealed that decision to the 9th. Circuit Court in San Francisco.

Arguments by both sides of the case were heard in court in August of 2005, and today, three judges from the 9th. Circuit Court knocked Wal-Mart back on its heels by upholding the lower court’s ruling. The media called today’s decision a “major setback” for the retailer—on the same day that its stock had risen sharply.

The Dukes case is likely to become the record-holder for the largest gender discrimination case in American history.

For that reason, Wal-Mart immediately announced that it would seek a second hearing before the 9th. Circuit, and would take this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. “We will seek a rehearing of today’s decision by a divided three-judge panel,” Wal-Mart told The Morning News in Northwest Arkansas. The 9th. Circuit Court said today that the lower court had the discretion to decide that class action status made more sense than “clogging” the federal courts with thousands of individual suits about the same issues.

“Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable,” the federal court wrote. Wal-Mart’s effort to claim the size of the class was unwieldy for the company was rejected by the court. Wal-Mart also tried to argue that the rules of class action suits should not apply to them, because its 3,400 stores function as independent businesses, and that the company as a whole does not discriminating against women.

Wal-Mart’s lead attorney in the case told reporters today’s ruling was “one step in what is going to be a long process. We are very optimistic about obtaining relief from this ruling as the case progresses.” If Wal-Mart can’t get the 3 judges who sat in today’s decision to rehear the case, they also can ask for the full panel of 15 judges to hear it. The Impact Fund of California represents the women who filed the lawsuit.

“What this shows is that no amount of PR or spin can avoid the day in court that is coming, and it’s time for Wal-Mart to face the music,” said the lead attorney for The Impact Fund. “We’re confident that the women of Wal-Mart will have their day in court.” Wal-Mart could wind up paying out billions if it loses the class-action lawsuit.

Click here to visit the Impact Fund.
Click here to learn more about the Dukes v. Wal-Mart suit.

Posted by Al Norman on Thursday, February 08, 2007

COMMENTS

Give it to em Girls!!!

R E M E M B E R
J O N Q U I E R E
Q U E B E C
Home of Walmart Worker Abuse
We will never forget what you did Walmart.

Alex in Ontario, Canada
Thursday, February 08 at 06:14 PM

way to go 9th circuit!! and as the song goes “this one’s for the girls”

carol in in
Thursday, February 08 at 07:22 PM

Thank goodness. My department manager never, and I mean never asks me to help in the trailors because I am a woman and he feels women have their place. He has even gone as far as to tell another fellow woman employee that “she needs to stay in the kitchen”. In other words, stay behind the counter and check people out. Time and time again this person has been complained upon yet nothing has been done about it. We never get to go to lunch on time, we are told to wait and that as long as we have lunch before 6 hours are up that is within the law. We don’t get our breaks on time either. The pay was much lower for me and my women co-workers than it is for the men starting out. On top of that, the men get more over time than the woman in our Nacogdoches wal-mart. The Nacogdoches hours need to be checked out when it comes to the employees, men versus women. I cannot tell you how unhappy our people all over the store are.

Wal-Mart worker in Nacogdoches
Thursday, February 08 at 11:02 PM

Wal-Mart doesn’t sound like a very good place to work.

Terry in
Friday, February 09 at 06:02 AM

Wal-Mart worker in Nacogdoches,

“The Nacogdoches hours need to be checked out when it comes to the employees, men versus women. I cannot tell you how unhappy our people all over the store are.”

If this is true, then I suggest you take Dave and Alexes advice and get the employees together and get a union going. Then, get back to us and let us know how that worked out for you, okay?

Bob in
Friday, February 09 at 10:41 PM

GOD BLESS YOU,ALL. I’m glad we have all of you fighting for us! You just don’t really know what is going on in ALL of these WALMART stores. We’ve lost in the last year, some of OUR BEST workers and ASSISTANT MANAGERS, in our CALERA,AL. store. Lee SCOTT ought to be ASHAME of himself. He knows what he is doing. Sam Walton; I’m almost sure; is up there in heaven, just shaking his head and wishing he was back here straightening him out. I’m sure he’d through him out so fast he would’nt know what hit him. That’s alright, he’ll have to pay his dues one day, just like the rest of us! I guess he’s so wrapped up in all that money, he’s taking from all of us, that he does’nt realize he can lose it,as fast as he got it! RIGHT? Like the one person said “ this one is for the girls”!

Sandra in Calera.Al.
Saturday, February 10 at 02:08 AM

Bob in - driveling with this-
Friday, February 09 at 11:41 PM

“If this is true, then I suggest you take Dave and Alexes advice and get the employees together and get a union going. Then, get back to us and let us know how that worked out for you, okay?”

Bob forgot to tell you about WalMart’s union busting rapid deployment force. They jump on a plane in Bentonville when some 28hr/wk ‘associate’ without health care says the word ‘union’. Or close down stores when they vote for union representation (Ontario,Canada). Bob even forgot to tell you about WalMart spying on employees for suspected union activities. (see WalMart/Canadian history for openers).

WalMart- Unions? We kill people over shoplifting.

SanDiegoView in
Saturday, February 10 at 05:16 AM

SDV-

That was precisely Bob’s point - a union will not change anything except, perhaps, your employment status with the company.

BTW - Closing that store in Jonquiere was completely legal under Canadian law.

Someone in USA
Saturday, February 10 at 11:51 AM

Someone,

“That was precisely Bob’s point” - Precisely, it is just as legal for a company to try to keep a union out, as it is for employees to get one in.

BTW - I still haven’t heard anything about what happened with those Florida Wal-Mart employees that walked out, does anybody know?

Bob in
Sunday, February 11 at 12:57 AM

THEY LOST THIER JOBS

BOB in
Sunday, February 11 at 07:25 PM

Boob and BOB

WAL*MART backed down, then gave the employees back their hours that had been cut from 40 to 32. No one lost their jobs over this. This does show that when the employees stand united, they can make a diference, even at WM....... The next step is a UNION. Its not if but WHEN!

DAVE SMITH
PROUD UNION IRONWORKER

IRONHEAD in Oklahoma City
Sunday, February 11 at 11:24 PM

WAL*MART backed down, then gave the employees back their hours that had been cut from 40 to 32. No one lost their jobs over this.

What makes you so sure?

Wal-Mart backed off initially and no one lost their jobs then. However, it did not stop Wal-Mart from implementing its scheduling and attendance changes and even though I haven’t heard anything for a while, I would be willing to bet that half of those who participated are gone by now.

Someone in USA
Monday, February 12 at 12:15 AM

“I would be willing to bet that half of those who participated are gone by now.”

That’s a pretty safe bet, Someone, since Wal-Mart’s turnover rate is always above 40%, nearly half of all associates at all stores are probably gone by now.

Ken V in Texas
Monday, February 12 at 04:38 AM

Well, Ken, you know I wouldn’t want to lose.

Seriously, I’ve seen how Wal-Mart deals with people it doesn’t want around. It finds (or makes up) a reason to fire them. The only thing that may have protected some of them is that the walkout drew a lot of attention.

Someone in USA
Monday, February 12 at 10:12 AM

“Closing that store in Jonquiere was completely legal under Canadian law.”

Someone in USA
Saturday, February 10 at 12:51 PM

“Seriously, I’ve seen how Wal-Mart deals with people it doesn’t want around. It finds (or makes up) a reason to fire them.”

Someone in USA
Monday, February 12 at 11:12 AM

WalMart- See our moral greatness for Canadian ‘associates’ and their families (check out our ads today!!). And you thought we only screwed over American workers

SanDiegoView in
Wednesday, February 14 at 05:14 PM

Commenting is not available in this content entry.