(Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc will urge the Supreme Court next week to reject the largest class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, brought by female employees who seek billion of dollars.
The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against the world's largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998.
Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of current and former employees that could total millions of women.
The case has pitted women's and employees' rights against business interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling it "the most important class-action case facing the court in over a decade."
The case will have far-reaching implications for working women who challenge discrimination, women's rights advocate Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center said.
"The ability of women to be treated fairly in the workplace hangs in the balance," Greenberger said.
The ruling, expected by late June, could change the legal landscape for workplace class-action lawsuits and affect many cases, including a similar one against Costco Wholesale Corp.
Large class-action lawsuits make it easier for big groups of plaintiffs to sue corporations and they have yielded huge payouts by tobacco, oil and food companies.
Companies have sought to limit such lawsuits to individual or small groups of plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority that has often ruled for businesses, has already limited large class-action securities fraud lawsuits and asbestos cases.
If Wal-Mart wins, the huge class would be undone, though the company still could face individual discrimination lawsuits. If the workers win, they would be able to pursue their lawsuit as a collective group at trial.
Legal experts and financial analysts said Wal-Mart, with more than $400 billion in sales and $16 billion in net income last year, has enough cash to make even a big payout if it loses at trial.
"It would take a seismic ruling against the company to have an impact on the valuation," said R.J. Hottovy, equity analyst at the Chicago-based Morningstar Inc investment research firm.
MANAGERS ACCUSED OF GOING STRIP CLUBS
The Wal-Mart lawsuit has produced testimony that managers held business meetings at Hooters restaurants, attended strip clubs and referred to female employees as "girls," in what plaintiffs lawyers said was a corporate culture rife with stereotypes demeaning to women.
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
I could be mistaken, but I believe that the OVERALL cost of a woman's employment is likely closer to a man's than most present. I think that the costs associated with medical leave and calling in to care for a sick child, etc..are higher for women, thus likely offsetting the "hourly" pay that they see on their check. I would be curious to see some more numbers. I have a feeling that when these disparities are brought up, the whole picture is not presented.
It seems to me, that if in fact men cost the company more to hire/pay, (which they must if they get paid more, right? Thus making men the more expensive employee), then they would just hire all women to acquire a great cost savings, right? Because we all know that these evil corporations are only concerned about the mighty dollar, (right?). A less expensive workforce would improve the bottom line!
How is it discrimination to hire someone for a job they apply for, and paying them what was agreed upon at the time they were hired.
Its not like all of my staff make the same wage.
__________________
We do NOT need to raise taxes on the people. The government needs to spend less is the answer.
How is it discrimination to hire someone for a job they apply for, and paying them what was agreed upon at the time they were hired.
Its not like all of my staff make the same wage.
Quote:
The top U.S. court hears arguments on March 29 in a lawsuit against the world's largest retailer for allegedly giving women less pay and fewer promotions at 3,400 U.S. stores since late 1998.
Lawyers for the two sides will spar over whether the small group of women who began the lawsuit 10 years ago can represent a huge nationwide class of current and former employees that could total millions of women.
The case has pitted women's and employees' rights against business interests, with Robin Conrad of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce calling it "the most important class-action case facing the court in over a decade."
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
While I do find it interesting to read about.
Anyone that runs a business with employees, will at some point have staff that feel they are mistreated.
In the case of Walmart, its so huge, they have a lot of people that work for them.
So greater chance of many disgruntled employees complaining.
If they want promotions, and raises, then earn it.
Treat the customers amazingly well, your bosses should get 100% respect to.
Work hard, do your job very well, take any opportunity to learn more, be it on the job, or through courses that maybe offered.
When you get an employee review, if anything negative is mentioned, ask how you can improve and let the employer know you want to be a GREAT asset, not just there for a pay cheque.
Also ask how you can move up, and strive for it if thats what you want.
Complaining will most likely insure you do not advance, and get little if any raises.
Complainers generally stay low on the ladder, or get fired.
__________________
__________________
We do NOT need to raise taxes on the people. The government needs to spend less is the answer.
Linear Mode
