Walmart and Women's Rights

This video is not specifically about women's rights movement in Walmart; instead it deals with whole bunch of problems regarding Walmart.

Now the following articles concern Walmart, how this vicious company violates women's rights in all kinds of ways, and the public's reaction to this.

Wal-Mart: Merchant of Shame

Take Action:

Get the facts on Wal-Mart v. Dukes Sign the women-friendly workplace consumer's pledge Updated brochure coming soon!

In 2002, the National Organization for Women named Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame as part of its Women Friendly Workplace Campaign. Wal-Mart's dismal record contradicts the worker-friendly image it projects to the public. Join NOW in its campaign to demand changes in Wal-Mart's unfair practices.

Background: In the years leading up to naming Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame, NOW leaders and members received numerous complaints regarding workplace environment and employment practices at the chain's retail stores and distribution centers, as well as its regional and corporate offices. NOW reviewed the extensive public record on cases filed against Wal-Mart and found the allegations disturbing. These included sex discrimination in pay, promotion and compensation, wage abuse, exclusion of contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, violations of child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Cases have also been filed regarding firing pro-union workers, eliminating jobs once workers joined unions, and discouraging workers from unionizing.

In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes -- the largest class action lawsuit in U.S. history, filed on behalf of 1.5 million women employees who were discriminated against while working for the retail giant -- NOW will continue to fight to bring justice to these women. The Supreme Court heard the case, which included 120 affidavits relating to 235 stores, and ruled that "[e]ven if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination.'" Essentially, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and women as a group not worthy of class action status.

NOW is partnering with United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and other leaders from the women's movement and labor movement to support the Making Change at Wal-Mart Campaign, which aims to transform the nation's largest employer into a good employer. Read on for more about NOW's efforts to get Wal-Mart to clean up its act.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes: A Failure of the Supreme Court

October 5, 2011

Wal-Mart v. Dukes was the largest class action lawsuit ever filed in the U.S., representing as many as 1.5 million women associates who were systematically discriminated against by the retail giant on the basis of sex in determining pay and promotions.

In a 5-4 Supreme Court opinion revoking the right of underpaid women associates to sue as a class, the Roberts Court declared Wal-Mart too big to sue and claimed a lack of commonality among the plaintiffs.

The facts pose no question as to whether Wal-Mart discriminates against women. An analysis conducted for the lawsuit showed that women employees were paid five to 15 percent less than men in similar positions, even after taking into account factors including seniority and performance.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, "Even if every single one of these accounts is true, that would not demonstrate that the entire company 'operate[s] under a general policy of discrimination … Respondents have identified no 'specific employment practice'--much less one that ties all their 1.5 million claims together. Merely showing that Wal-Mart's policy of discretion has produced an overall sex-based disparity does not suffice."

Penning the minority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores … A system of delegated discretion … is a practice actionable … when it produces discriminatory outcomes."

In the wake of Wal-Mart v. Dukes, NOW calls on women's rights activists and supporters around the country to support legislative and worker-led remedies that will support justice for women associates:

First, holding Congress accountable to passing a Paycheck Fairness Act, which will provide more effective remedies to victims of sex-based wage discrimination.

Second, supporting unions and in particular the associate-led Organization United for Respect at Wal-Mart (OUR Wal-Mart). Women workers in unions earn 11.2 percent more, or $2.00 more per hour, than non-union women workers, and the gender wage gap is smaller in unionized workplaces.

NOW also reaffirms Wal-Mart as a "Merchant of Shame" as part of its Women-Friendly Workplace Campaign. NOW chapters continue to lead countless community demonstrations at Wal-Mart stores around the country to educate shoppers about Wal-Mart's exploitation of women.

What's at stake in the Walmart women's lawsuit

The case before the US supreme court is critical for the future of class action litigation – at a critical moment for American workers

The US supreme court heard oral arguments Tuesday on what could be the largest class action civil rights suit in US history. Or it could be the case that stops class action history in its tracks. Monster megastore Walmart is challenging a lower court's decision to permit women employed at thousands of Walmart stores to join together to contest alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion practices.

"This has been a ten-year process," says plaintiff Edith Arana. What keeps the women of Dukes v Wal-Mart going, she says, is the belief that something bigger than them is at stake. (Walmart revised the form of its name a few years back.) Says Arana:

"I know what happened to me and it's not just me. The women of this lawsuit are the poster children for the all the women who couldn't do this, and they each have families and names and faces."

That, when it comes to class action lawsuits, is the whole point. Class action lawsuits have probably been the best tool since the passage of the 1964 civil rights act to bring forth claims and win cases against companies that discriminate. The case now before the court will decide not only if women like Arana and Betty Dukes experienced discrimination, but if an entire class of workers did.

It couldn't be a more contentious issue, at a more contentious moment. As Columbia University political science professor Dorian Warren noted on GRITtv this week, the Walmart case comes before a court that has been sceptical not just of discrimination cases, but of the very idea of "class action". And it comes before a nation that – from Madison to Main Street in just about every state – is in the streets over that very concept.

Coming up on 4 April is a nationally coordinated day of action by US trade unions and their allies: We Are One. The protesters will be recalling Dr Martin Luther King's legacy – on the anniversary of his assassination. But they could do worse than to take a tip from the Tea Party types and read the US Constitution while they're at it. Listen in to one of those Tea Party recitations and you'll find constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech, of the press and of the right peaceably to assemble and petition government for redress. For working Americans living in the most dramatically divided economy in a century, every one of those avenues is under attack.

Freedom of the press? Concentration of media ownership is consolidating press power into a few mighty hands. As in the recently approved NBC/Comcast merger, the power in question is the power to shut others out.

Assembly? After weeks of inconvenient public protest for labour rights and against draconian cuts to public services and the people who provide them, the city of Madison just restricted speech in the people's Capitol building to a small "free speech zone" – for the first time in Wisconsin history. In Albany, New York, protesters faced a sign that told them only "senators, staff and lobbyists" were welcome in the state's house.

The Roberts court has ruled for business interests 61% of the time,according to the New York Times, compared with 46% for the similarly conservative-leaning Rehnquist court, and 42% for all since 1953. The US Chamber of Commerce has been involved in many of those decisions – and had their wishes gratified 68% of the time. "There has been a return on investment, not to sound too crass," Robin S Conrad, executive vice president of the chamber's litigation unit, told the Times.

And then, of course, there's the Citizens United v FEC decision, by which the supreme court ruled to lift limits on anonymous corporate spending on elections.

The courts, the court of opinion, elections, the banks, the workplace – you'd be forgiven for thinking the powerful had the US pretty much sewn-up. As Dorian Warren put it:

"If the courts strike down the women's ability to sue Walmart, this pretty much fundamentally weakens a core tool of collective action for workers. Similarly, what we see in the public sector – it's targeting workers' ability to come together."

On the other hand, there is still that pesky Constitution. And the very real possibility of overreach by the corporate-backed right. Take a look around on 4 April. I suspect this battle's not over yet.