0 comments

---

So were back to this? And we thought worker intimidation was soooooooo last year.

In 2007, Human Rights Watch released a report detailing Wal-Mart’s unionbusting policies and practices in the United States. According to the report, “while many American companies use weak U.S. laws to stop workers from organizing, the retail giant stands out for the sheer magnitude and aggressiveness of its anti-union apparatus.”

That aggressiveness is back in the news, courtesy of a unionizing push in St. Paul, Minnesota:

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 789 filed unfair labor practices complaints this week with the National Labor Relations Board. The union contends that during meetings with employees at its Midway store in St. Paul, Wal-Mart managers said people who sign union authorization cards would be fired. The union also charges that store managers interrogated employees regarding their union support and whether they had signed cards in favor of the union.

Of course this shouldn’t be very surprising, though it does seem pretty interesting that management staff came right out and told people that they’d no longer be a Wal-Mart employee if they supported unionization. You’d think they would hew closer to the Godfather-esque, vague threat route - we can’t be held responsible if, say, a supporter “had an accident” type thing. They should know that threatening workers’ employment status is illegal, right? Or do they just not care? One thing we do know is that they’ve certainly had problems with labor issues in Minnesota before.

Anyway, we’re attempting to get a copy of the NLRB complaint. In the meantime, feel free to check out video of the Local 789 worker rally after the jump.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

According to Bloomberg, Wal-Mart has won preliminary court approval to pay as much as $85 million to settle 30 wage/hour lawsuits. The lawsuits claimed the company didn’t pay employees for all hours worked, forcing them to miss breaks and forgo overtime pay.

Late last year, Wal-Mart announced that it would settle 63 wage and hour class action lawsuits that have been pending against the company for several years. There were just under 80 such suits pending against Wal-Mart at the time, so it represented a pretty large legal housecleaning. This $85 million settlement covers just under half those cases as part of the larger agreement made back in December, which could cost the company up to $640 million before all is said and done.

Following the initial settlement, we noted that what these cases revealed through evidence and employee testimony was a “corporate culture” and systematic approach geared towards cutting labor costs, by dictating managers hire below the “preferred” staffing levels and rewarding managers for keeping labor costs down. Steven Greenhouse on TPM has pointed out that while store management is ultimately responsible for setting schedules, pressure often comes from the top:

Robert Eckert, a former assistant store manager at several Wal-Marts in California, said: “They tell you that working off the clock is against the law, is not allowed by Wal-Mart, and then they tell you to get the job done. But they didn’t give you the budget to get the job done. It is clearly understood that if you don’t make payroll, it’s a serious issue and you can lose your job over it.”

For more information on wage theft in general, you should check out Kim Bobo’s “Wage Theft in America: Why Millions of Working Americans Are Not Getting Paid - And What We Can Do About It.”

As for the $85 settlement, a Federal Judge in granting temporary approval called the wage theft agreement “fair, reasonable, and adequate.” Merely adequate for the workers, perhaps, but no doubt a “steal” for Wal-Mart.

Read the rest of this story ...

20 comments

---

A new lawsuit has been filed by the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) against Wal-Mart.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims some Hispanic employees at a Fresno Sam’s Club were subjected to a hostile work environment. The suit filed yesterday in U.S. District Court against parent company Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alleges that managers failed to stop repeated verbal harassment, including the use of derogatory words, against employees of Mexican origin.

The EEOC attempted to reach a settlement, but when an agreement could not be reached, a lawsuit was filed. The EEOC filed two lawsuits against the company in 2008, and settled two more. The current suit is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and the creation of a formal complaint procedure.

EEOC sues Fresno Sam’s Club on behalf of Latinos [San Jose Mercury News]

Read the rest of this story ...

20 comments

---

THE Wal-Mart lawsuit - Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the largest discrimination class action in U.S. history - now has a new advocate. And let’s just say, it’s kind of a big one.

The federal government (through the EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) had to this point elected not to get involved in the Dukes lawsuit. Yesterday, however, despite retaining many holdovers from the Bush Administration, the Commission finally threw it’s opinion into the ring. The EEOC filed an Amicus Brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, saying it was filing the brief because “this court’s resolution of issues relating to punitive damages and back pay in class cases may directly affect the commission’s enforcement of Title VII” of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, “particularly its systemic litigation.” The staff in charge of deciding whether to intervene in the Dukes case is currently made up of two Democrats and two Republicans.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” the EEOC wrote.

The EEOC isn’t actually taking a stand on the merits of the case itself - the Commission is only supporting the class action moving forward, deeming the issue important enough to its functions to intervene and assert its voice.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” EEOC Attorney Barbara Sloan wrote. “It would be ‘nonsensical’ to prevent victims of particularly egregious discrimination from proceeding collectively.”

Needless to say, attorneys for plaintiffs welcomed the news, while Wal-Mart’s legal team and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were less than pleased. The EEOC news comes about a month after the Ninth Circuit announced it would re-hear the class action certification decision en banc - when one party requests an hearing en banc, it means they are requesting a hearing where all judges of a court will hear the case, rather than a panel of them. That hearing is currently scheduled for March 24.

Obama Administration Sides With Wal-Mart Workers [Bloomberg]

Read the rest of this story ...

10 comments

---

We’ve been following Wal-Mart’s transgressions against its disabled employees for some time now, focusing in particular on the company’s consistent refusal to provide them with ADA-mandated reasonable accommodations. We have, as well, followed issues that disabled customers have had with the retail giant, including facing refusals to allow service animals into the store - this case involving the lovable Chloe (pictured right) comes to mind.

Now, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice recently entered into a settlement agreement with Wal-Mart under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, requiring the company to improve access for persons with disabilities at Wal-Mart stores nationwide. A big thanks to journalist/blogger Suzanne Robitaille, formerly of BusinessWeek Online, for sending over the DOJ info. You can check out her blog here. The agreement resolves an investigation that began after the DOJ received several complaints alleging that Wal-Mart had refused to provide “reasonable modifications to its rules, policies, practices, and procedures for customers with disabilities.” Wal-Mart has agreed to take a number of steps, including:

* an undertaking by Wal-Mart not to discriminate in violation of Title III of the ADA and to provide reasonable modifications to individuals with disabilities as required by Title III of the ADA, such as disability-related assistance such as helping customers in locating, lifting, and carrying items;
* the adoption and implementation of an ADA-compliant policy of welcoming persons with disabilities who use service animals into Wal-Mart stores with little or no questioning and without repeated challenges by Wal-Mart employees;
* training for all employees on Wal-Mart’s obligations under Title III of the ADA to make reasonable modifications for individuals with disabilities and Wal-Mart’s new ADA-compliant service animal policy;
* additional training for store management and People Greeters, since employees in these positions have additional responsibilities under Wal-Mart’s new service animal policy;
* the posting of Wal-Mart’s new service animal policy on its website and in employee areas at its stores;
* the establishment of a grievance procedure in which Wal-Mart will receive complaints alleging violations of Title III of the ADA at a toll-free hotline, investigate such complaints, and take appropriate corrective actions to resolve any noncompliance with Title III of the ADA, including relief to complainants where appropriate.

For a recap of Wal-Mart issues with disabled employees, you can check out our report Reasonable Accommodation: Denied here.

Read the rest of this story ...

0 comments

---

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signs could be a major step forward for pro-labor groups. Senate Bill 181, a wage discrimination bill that will reverse a 2007 Supreme Court decision narrowing the time period during which a worker can file a wage discrimination claim, cleared the Senate yesterday and is not expected to have much difficulty passing in the House. That would be because the House passed a nearly identical bill two weeks ago that, for reasons we won’t worry about for the moment, was not considered by the Senate.

The legislation, titled the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, focuses on Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., [550 U.S. 618 (2007)], a Supreme Court decision holding that regardless of when a worker discovers a pay disparity, any legal action needs to be filed within 180 days of the initial decision to pay the worker less. That means if you didn’t discover that you were being screwed within the first 6 months of your employment, you were pretty much up the creek. For Lilly Ledbetter, an employee at Goodyear Tire and Rubber for over 19 years, she didn’t realize she was getting a lower salary and lower pay raises then her male counterparts until after she left the company - and only then because an anonymous note was left in her mailbox. A statute of limitations is not uncommon in the civil law system, but often they begin to toll once the perceived wrong is discovered. Forcing an employee to sue within 180 days of a decision they might not discover for years - if ever - is fairly, well, wrong.

It has been a priority for women’s groups seeking to narrow the wage gap between men and women. “We feel free at last,” said Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., the chief sponsor of the legislation. She said the strong vote, which included all 16 female senators — including four Republicans — was “a sign of what Democratic leadership means.”

The AP story points out another point regarding the legislation...that is, the effect it might have on other labor legislation, including the Employee Free Choice Act:

The bill paves the way for considering more controversial labor measures, including one that would take away a company’s right to demand a secret ballot when workers are seeking to organize. (Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid said that could come up this summer.

Senate passes wage discrimination bill [Associated Press]

Read the rest of this story ...

38 comments

---

Life in the minority isn’t easy. When you’re in the minority and a recipient of threats and abuse because of your minority status, life gets even harder. But when you bring these issues and concerns for your own safety to the attention of your employer, and they do nothing, thats called the tipping point.

And so it was for Louay Kezy, a Michigan man who has filed a $12 million lawsuit against Wal-Mart after being on the receiving end of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab abuse at work. Kezy’s attorney, Nabih Ayad, relayed Kezy’s story to the Detroit News:

“They demeaned him, harassed him, called him names. They accused him of being a terrorist,” Ayad said. “Supervisors ordered him to do jobs that were unrelated to his duties. They allowed a joke, a game to continue where co-workers would toss a ball near him and pretend it was a grenade, a bomb. Wal-Mart allowed this hostile environment to continue and they fired him when he complained.”

Dearborn, Michigan, has a very large Arab and Muslim population, and with that in mind Wal-Mart opened an experimental store there in March which offers a special line of products geared toward the Arab American and American Muslim communities in the Metro Detroit area. Unfortunately, the same respect shown to customers may be missing with regards to employees.

“It is absurd that his supervisors think they can take this action against an Arab American without consequences right in the middle of the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East,” Ayad said. “That Wal-Mart can take their money as consumers but allow an Arab employee to be abused is absurd.”

This is a refrain we’ve heard all too often. Issues of discrimination within Wal-Mart seem to follow the company like paparazzi on Britney Spears.

Read the rest of this story ...

7 comments

---

For the second time in as many weeks, Wal-Mart has been accused of violating federal law by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In the first lawsuit filed earlier this month in Illinois, the EEOC accused Wal-Mart of violating employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This time around, the suit involves not disability but age discrimination. The ADEA - or Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older in the United States. After an investigation, the EEOC determined Yvonne Loskot was fired from the retailer’s De Soto, Missouri, store because she was too old and made too much money.

According to the EEOC complaint filed in federal court in Missouri’s eastern district, Loskot was 67 when she was fired. According to a story from the St. Louis Business Journal, Wal-Mart has claimed Loskot was let go for violating an unspecified company policy.

Loskot, who worked for Wal-Mart for a decade, earned $18 an hour as a certified optician, making her the highest-paid employee in the De Soto store’s optical department.

Agency accuses Wal-Mart of age discrimination [CNN Money]

Read the rest of this story ...