Wal-Mart faces biggest sex bias case in US history - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

jie3 · 02-07-2007, 05:52 AM

I think it's great, it's about time that company was made to answer

Wal-Mart faces biggest sex bias case in US history
Wed Feb 7, 2007 6:36 AM IST

http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new...a-286628-1.xml

By Jim Christie

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The biggest sexual discrimination case in U.S. history advanced against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Tuesday when a top court ruled that more than a million women could join a suit charging bias in pay and promotions.
The plaintiffs estimate they could win billions of dollars in lost pay and damages and that as many as two million women who have worked for Wal-Mart in its U.S. stores since 1998 could join a class-action lawsuit.
"It is time for Wal-Mart to face the music," Brad Seligman, a lawyer for The Impact Fund, a nonprofit group in Berkeley, California representing the female plaintiffs, told reporters.
"Two courts now have ruled that Wal-Mart is going to have to face a jury ... We fully expect Wal-Mart to keep appealing but we're very confident now that two courts have upheld this (class) certification," he said.
Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, 56, who works as a greeter at a Wal-Mart east of San Francisco, said she had let out a cheer while at work. "I am absolutely overjoyed," Dukes said.
The 2-1 ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took no position on Dukes's claims, stressing the decision only affirmed a lower court ruling to certify the case as a class action against the world's largest retailer.
Wal-Mart has been a lightning rod for controversy, accused of underpaying workers and undermining small business with its huge stores, charges that it has roundly denied, pointing to itself as a major source of jobs.
The company said it would appeal the ruling to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
"This was one step in what is going to be a long process, and we are still at a very early stage in this case," said Ted Boutrous, lead counsel for Wal-Mart's appeal. "We are very optimistic about our chances for obtaining relief from this ruling as the case progresses."
In a class action, individuals bring a suit on behalf of a larger group that suffered similar harm. In the Wal-Mart case, six other women join Dukes as the plaintiffs.
"Class actions have been for four decades now the critical ingredient in employment discrimination litigation," said William Gould, a Stanford University emeritus professor of law.
"There is very little incentive for the defendants to change their practices unless a finding is made that there is a nexus between the named plaintiffs and the group," Gould said.
VETERAN EMPLOYEE
Dukes, a Wal-Mart employee for nearly 13 years, said she sued the company because of neglect she and fellow female employees felt when openings for positions were advertised within her store.
After working as a cashier for three years, Dukes said she advanced to a customer service representative post, a promotion that some male employee obtained even before probationary periods after they were hired had expired.
"I had seen males go into the position with less than 90 days experience," Dukes said in an interview.
Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart had argued it did not discriminate and that class-action status should be dismissed because the company grants its 3,400 U.S. stores a great deal of independence in their management.
In a dissent, 9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said the case should not be a certified as a class, since it could enrich lawyers and undeserving plaintiffs while diluting the rewards to any who were actually injured by sex bias.
"Plaintiffs' only evidence of sex discrimination is that around 2/3 of Wal-Mart employees are female, but only about 1/3 of its managers are female," he wrote.
"Not everybody wants to be a Wal-Mart manager," Kleinfeld added. "Those women who want to be managers may find better opportunities elsewhere."
Donald Gher, chief investment officer of Coldstream Capital Management, which owns Wal-Mart stock, said the decision was a setback for the retailer and would cheer the company's critics in the U.S. labor movement.
"Clearly this is a big win for the tort lawyers and for the unions who are looking to cases like this to help bolster their ranks," he said.
Shares of Wal-Mart were little changed on the news, and closed 6 cents higher Tuesday at $48.58 on the New York Stock Exchange.

Ireneparalegal · 02-08-2007, 02:01 PM

My oldest daughter worked for Wal-mart two years ago. She received paperwork in the mail regarding this lawsuit.

jie3 · 02-08-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireneparalegal

My oldest daughter worked for Wal-mart two years ago. She received paperwork in the mail regarding this lawsuit.

Really? Was it from Wal-Mart or the Prosecution?

J

Brian Damage · 02-08-2007, 09:12 PM

...

Lex Luthor · 02-08-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

...

Wow that has to be one of the cleaverest, most insightful posts I have ever sen you write. lol

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

...

WOW! A whole three dots, you'd better have a lie down.

Fleet · 02-09-2007, 02:16 AM

Maybe the three dots means "to be continued."

Brian Damage · 02-09-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fleet

Maybe the three dots means "to be continued."

Actually it was meant to post this...

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Actually it was meant to post this...

Image posting 101 anybody?

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brian Damage

Actually it was meant to post this...

Of course it never had a chance, the Chiefs didn't like it

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fleet

Maybe the three dots means "to be continued."

Maybe not

Janice · 02-09-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jie3

Of course it never had a chance, the Chiefs didn't like it

What's this Chief business you keep posting about? If you're ragging on the moderators, you're gone. Let me know. TJ warned you about that quite a while ago.

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janice

What's this Chief business you keep posting about? If you're ragging on the moderators, you're gone. Let me know. TJ warned you about that quite a while ago.

Not mods in particular, cliques, which may or may not include mods. They're not immune to criticism.

Also, TJ warns a lot of people who ignore him. So even if you believe that I'm guilty of it, why single me out?

I can post names and examples, let me know.

J

Janice · 02-09-2007, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jie3

Not mods in particular, cliques, which may or may not include mods. They're not immune to criticism.

Also, TJ warns a lot of people who ignore him. So even if you believe that I'm guilty of it, why single me out?

I can post names and examples, let me know.

J

You are doing nothing but looking for trouble. Nobody else is doing that. You're like a fly at a picnic. Posting graphics towards me, you name it. Last time, knock it off.

Last time. I think you need the weekend off, and hopefully you'll come back with a better attitude. If you think I'm babysitting and fielding your jabs, think again.

jie3 · 02-09-2007, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janice

You are doing nothing but looking for trouble. Nobody else is doing that. You're like a fly at a picnic. Posting graphics towards me, you name it. Last time, knock it off.

Last time. I think you need the weekend off, and hopefully you'll come back with a better attitude. If you think I'm babysitting and fielding your jabs, think again.

Are you serious !??

No one else is looking for trouble! What? Does BD not count because he's a Mod?

And I post images at everyone I'm arguing with, if this is fair board, then I should be able to it to you too, regardless of your authority here. I shouldn't have to act to differently when replying to you because it may mean a suspension.

I've got to admit though, I'm real surprised that all of this disruption has been attributed to me, I knew I had an influence over here, but I didn't think it was perceived so strongly. It's kinda humbling.

J

02-07-2007, 05:52 AM	#1
jie3 Member Senior Member Join Date: Oct 13, 2005 Location: HOME OF THE BRAVE! Posts: 1,057	Wal-Mart faces biggest sex bias case in US history I think it's great, it's about time that company was made to answer Wal-Mart faces biggest sex bias case in US history Wed Feb 7, 2007 6:36 AM IST http://in.today.reuters.com/news/new...a-286628-1.xml By Jim Christie SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The biggest sexual discrimination case in U.S. history advanced against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. on Tuesday when a top court ruled that more than a million women could join a suit charging bias in pay and promotions. The plaintiffs estimate they could win billions of dollars in lost pay and damages and that as many as two million women who have worked for Wal-Mart in its U.S. stores since 1998 could join a class-action lawsuit. "It is time for Wal-Mart to face the music," Brad Seligman, a lawyer for The Impact Fund, a nonprofit group in Berkeley, California representing the female plaintiffs, told reporters. "Two courts now have ruled that Wal-Mart is going to have to face a jury ... We fully expect Wal-Mart to keep appealing but we're very confident now that two courts have upheld this (class) certification," he said. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, 56, who works as a greeter at a Wal-Mart east of San Francisco, said she had let out a cheer while at work. "I am absolutely overjoyed," Dukes said. The 2-1 ruling by the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals took no position on Dukes's claims, stressing the decision only affirmed a lower court ruling to certify the case as a class action against the world's largest retailer. Wal-Mart has been a lightning rod for controversy, accused of underpaying workers and undermining small business with its huge stores, charges that it has roundly denied, pointing to itself as a major source of jobs. The company said it would appeal the ruling to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. "This was one step in what is going to be a long process, and we are still at a very early stage in this case," said Ted Boutrous, lead counsel for Wal-Mart's appeal. "We are very optimistic about our chances for obtaining relief from this ruling as the case progresses." In a class action, individuals bring a suit on behalf of a larger group that suffered similar harm. In the Wal-Mart case, six other women join Dukes as the plaintiffs. "Class actions have been for four decades now the critical ingredient in employment discrimination litigation," said William Gould, a Stanford University emeritus professor of law. "There is very little incentive for the defendants to change their practices unless a finding is made that there is a nexus between the named plaintiffs and the group," Gould said. VETERAN EMPLOYEE Dukes, a Wal-Mart employee for nearly 13 years, said she sued the company because of neglect she and fellow female employees felt when openings for positions were advertised within her store. After working as a cashier for three years, Dukes said she advanced to a customer service representative post, a promotion that some male employee obtained even before probationary periods after they were hired had expired. "I had seen males go into the position with less than 90 days experience," Dukes said in an interview. Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart had argued it did not discriminate and that class-action status should be dismissed because the company grants its 3,400 U.S. stores a great deal of independence in their management. In a dissent, 9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld said the case should not be a certified as a class, since it could enrich lawyers and undeserving plaintiffs while diluting the rewards to any who were actually injured by sex bias. "Plaintiffs' only evidence of sex discrimination is that around 2/3 of Wal-Mart employees are female, but only about 1/3 of its managers are female," he wrote. "Not everybody wants to be a Wal-Mart manager," Kleinfeld added. "Those women who want to be managers may find better opportunities elsewhere." Donald Gher, chief investment officer of Coldstream Capital Management, which owns Wal-Mart stock, said the decision was a setback for the retailer and would cheer the company's critics in the U.S. labor movement. "Clearly this is a big win for the tort lawyers and for the unions who are looking to cases like this to help bolster their ranks," he said. Shares of Wal-Mart were little changed on the news, and closed 6 cents higher Tuesday at $48.58 on the New York Stock Exchange.
	__________________ Savor the fruits of life, but don't leave me with the indigestion! Bring Home The Troops Trade List: http://www.freewebs.com/jie3-tvtrader/ Best trade site ever! http://www.savageamusement.com

02-08-2007, 02:01 PM	#2
Ireneparalegal LEGAL SPICE ;) Forum Legend Join Date: Jul 25, 2005 Location: OXNARD, CA - WHERE THE DALLAS COWBOYS TRAIN & PRACTICE Posts: 38,691	My oldest daughter worked for Wal-mart two years ago. She received paperwork in the mail regarding this lawsuit.
	__________________ DALLAS COWBOYS ARE HERE AT TRAINING CAMP!!!

02-08-2007, 09:12 PM	#4
Brian Damage I'm Rich Bitch Forum Icon Join Date: Feb 03, 2002 Location: What Ain't No Country I Ever Heard Of...They Speak English in What? Posts: 63,107	...
	__________________ The Key to the Kingdom of Heaven: John 3:3 *Money Doesn't Buy Happiness...But I'd Rather Cry in My Private Jet*

02-09-2007, 02:16 AM	#7
Fleet Mansions, limousines & H-ween Forum Star Join Date: Jan 06, 2002 Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, California Posts: 15,625	Maybe the three dots means "to be continued."
	__________________ 1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five Limousine.