Dukes v. Wal-Mart Inc. Case Between the end of 2010 through to the summer of 2011, the Supreme Court saw the Dukes v. Walmart case, the largest sex-discrimination lawsuit in history, which originated in 2000 when plaintiff Betty Dukes claimed experiencing sex discrimination at work. The 54-year-old woman, despite being employed at Wal-Mart for six years with positive performance reviews, had been denied the opportunity to train for a higher paying position within the company. Her supervisor denied these claims, stating that she was disciplined for returning late from her lunch breaks. The lawsuit began in June of 2001 in the US District Court of San Francisco, California. “The plaintiffs sought to represent 1.6 million women, including women …show more content…
The Court ruled unanimously that because of the variability of plaintiffs' circumstances, the class action could not proceed as comprised. (It was) ruled 5-4 that it could not proceed as any kind of class action suit. Critics of the opinion allege that the decision makes it incredibly difficult to certify a class without a prohibitive amount of work on the part of plaintiff attorneys. The requirement to look through the class to the merits requires an immense amount of discovery, which was not previously required.” (Resource 1) The verdict deemed that no laws had been violated and voted in favor of the defendant, Wal-Mart Inc. “Plaintiffs failed to show that their proposed class shares a common question of law or fact required under Rule 23(a). In addition, claims for monetary relief are not eligible for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).” (Resource 1) In her article, Goldberg expresses concern for the welfare of women employed in large corporations, such as Wal-Mart, who seem to be invincible to discrimination claims. Although the body of the article is portrayed as inherently neutral, the title, “Walmart Discrimination Suit Supreme Court Ruling Hurts All Women” (Resource 2), conveys a negative reaction to the court’s ruling which leads me to believe that she disagrees with the outcome of this …show more content…
Based on the evidence provided, the initial lawsuit was filed for illegitimate reasons and, therefore, had no real substance which would have changed the outcome of the verdict had that been the case. While I do agree that there are issues regarding sex discrimination in the workplace, this particular claim struck me as nothing more than a cry for attention rather than a genuine claim against a very real concern of modern-day society. The deeper issue that was addressed in the article, which was a source of controversy throughout the duration of this case, is the fact that large corporations such as Wal-Mart seem to be above the law. It is argued that taking these multi-billion dollar organizations to court is a fruitless task if you are a single person or a belong to a smaller group, and would not make an impact at a trial. This is simply untrue, based on the countless number of lawsuits filed against other large corporations where the plaintiff has been the victor. The difference between those cases and this one is the legitimacy for initially filing a claim and the supporting evidence that was provided. For these reasons, I am confident that the outcome of this case would have been different if the circumstances had been valid or
In the case of the cashier, Josefina Hernandez, vs. Walgreens, it was determined by a judge that Walgreens violated Americans with Disabilities Act, which protects those with disabilities from discrimination and provides them with equal opportunities.
That's true whether she complies or refuses.” It is my belief that this damning statement completely unraveled the defense’s argument and was the final piece of evidence the judges needed in order to make their decision. However her lawyer went on to say that, “I think that if he's [Slowik] asking favors from females on the basis of sex, then he is discriminating on the basis of sex against them...” That was the final nail in the coffin. The legal provisions of this case encompass the Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and in a 7-to-2 opinion, the Supreme Court held that employers are vicariously liable for supervisors who create hostile working conditions for those over whom they have authority.
In the early 1990s, the EEOC opened an investigation of Hooters concerning whether the company was violating the civil rights of its workers. EEOC investigators decided that Hooters’ employment practices did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of gender. The EEOC presented that ‘Hooters’ business is about serving food, and that no physical trait distinctive to women or men is required to serve food and drinks to customers at a restaurant.’ The EEOC then continued toward settlement for the sake of all the males who were not successful in obtaining jobs at Hooters as waiters, hosts, or bartenders. During the EEOC case against Hooters, four male job applicants who weren’t given employment opportunity filed a lawsuit against Hooters alleging unlawful discrimination. In Hooters’ defense, the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) allowed being female to be a legitimate requirement for the job of a Hooters Girl. It was later declared that Hooters was unlawful for discriminating against males who applied for jobs as servers, hosts, and bartenders. Hooters eventually opened up a few positions to
Women’s equality has made huge advancements in the United States in the past decade. One of the most influential persons to the movement has been a woman named Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Ruth faced gender discrimination many times throughout her career and worked hard to ensure that discrimination based on a person’s gender would be eliminated for future generations. Ginsburg not only worked to fight for women’s equality but fought for the rights of men, as well, in order to show that equality was a human right’s issue and not just a problem that women faced. Though she faced hardships and discrimination, Ruth never stopped working and, thanks to her equality, is a much closer reality than it was fifty years ago.
Discrimination continues to run rampant throughout organizations in both the United States and worldwide. The Supreme Court case, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., dealt with 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees that claim that they had been a victim of gender discrimination. The ensuing pages will discuss the specific issues that the plaintiffs encountered, followed by suggestions from a human resource manager’s stand point in rectifying adverse impact within the Wal-Mart organization.
This case is talking about Wal-Mart stores were accused by six American female workers which is discriminating against its U.S. female workers. This case that happened at Wal-Mart is the largest case ever in American civil rights history. Judging by the 2010 Court of Appeals opinion, they were discovered two issues had alleged that women employed in Wal-Mart stores which is women was paid less than men in the similar positions .
The decision to terminate an employee may be difficult for some managers depending on the situation at hand. Today, many states have adopted the employment at will law to fire employees for any or no reason, with the exception of employees that have a contract in place. According to Erickson (2008), “The basis for an employer to terminate an employee without being sued is the employment-at-will doctrine. This doctrine is a statement that is signed by both the employee and employer at the time of hire that states that the employee can quit at any time for any reason without notice and that the employer can terminate the employee at any time for any legal reason.” On the contrary to the definition of “At-Will” employment, Pozgar (2012) states, “The employment-at-will common law doctrine is not truly applicable in today’s society and many courts have recognized this fact. The twentieth century has witnessed significant changes in socio-economic values that have led to reassessment of the common law rule (p. 494). An example of an organization hiring on an employment on an at-will basis but terminating an employee without justifying the cause of action was the case of Joseph Casias versus Corporation. By law, an employer has to follow guidelines that essentially make ethos rules null and void because there is nothing to adhere to, especially in a circumstance where the employee is terminated by the at-will policy. In this situation, if the employer terminated by allegations that this employee was an active drug user. However, by law, according to Mr. Casias and his attorney, this employee had legitimate reasons for being involved in obtaining and smoking marijuana. As discussed in the case, the law protect employees from illegitimate...
The news has recently reported that a female executive, Nadia Labban, claims that she was a victim of gender-based discrimination at the corporation she worked at, a national chain of pest control services called Quiet House Pest Control. Furthermore, Labban claimed that she was passed over for promotion to vice president of financial operations, was also frequently subjected to sexual harassment, with male employees and executives commenting about her appearance, and her tendency to wear short skirts, and frequently told jokes that depicted women as mainly worthwhile only because of their sexual availability to men. My colleague Brant and I discussed about Nadia Labban’s case. Brant explained 3 arguments to me. Overall, Brant claims that Labban
Furthermore, it is believed that women suing their employers “would create a disincentive for firms to hire women” (Perry). The system is set up for women to make less money and many cannot do anything about it. They cannot discuss their wages, gain information on other salaries, or even sue their employer without fearing the loss of their job, yet people still continue to believe there are only logical reasons for unequal
Although, this is not something that can be ignored because there are many positions of hard working women in the business area and many other places like the political world. Like mentioned before Sheryl Sandberg, the COO of Facebook, or Hillary clinton running for president; etc. But the thing is, the triumphs of these brilliant women covers the realities that a massive part of women in the workplace are not being treated fairly. It has to be shown the million of women still struggle to find a decent job to sustain themselves or sometime even their families. Take Ann Hopkins as an example.
This was a clear cut illustration of gender inequality but despite she lost the lawsuit against the company. Although, most cases of gender inequality aren’t as clean cut as Ledbetter there are still quite present and the differential of money can be recognizable over time. According to Billitteri, “Women do not realize the enormous price that they pay for gender wage discrimination because they do not see big bites taken out of their paychecks at any one time” and that occurs for obvious
These laws that were put in place to protect us, are not being enforced, and are often overlooked by companies, we need more than just a statement on paper. As the article continues to say, laws protect women against discrimination in the workforce, there are vigorous consequences for those who break these laws, (2-2) Since the 1970s, laws have protected women. The wage gap is a myth that has not yet died. (2-4) Although there are laws placed for anti-discrimination, that will not stop companies from violating these laws and as long as there is no enforcement, it will continue to be like
Wal-Mart is facing critical issues all around. They are being sued, their reputation is going down the drain, their customers is turning on them, and they have several ethical issues involving their stakeholder. They stakeholder is getting them for discrimination on female employees, disabled employees, and others. In almost all of these cases Wal-Mart was sued because of things that they did and they should not of did. You can not favor your male employees better than your female employees.
Just by standing up with women, this company is trying to benefit and profit off of what they just say, the wording or the