Posted by marykeating on September 1, 2010 under Interesting cases, Sex-based discrimination | 
Wal-Mart has appealed to the Supreme Court the Ninth Circuit’s green light for the massive class action suit. As reported here earlier, the class action could lead to disposition of 1.5 million claims by women blocked from promotional opportunities. The petition for review asks the Supreme Court to disallow a class action where each worker’s damages have to be separately calculated, and also complained of the sheer mass of the case. The petition makes two main arguments. One is based on the proper interpretation of the federal rule governing class actions. The other argument contends that the plaintiffs’ proof is eased by this method, and that trying a case in this way deprives WalMart of the right to trial by jury.
Lyle Denniston of Scotusblog predicts that the petition will be decided this coming term. If it is granted, then the parties will brief the issues, which are historic. There may not be enough time to conclude the case by the end of the coming term.
One easy prediction: the fact that there are now three women on the Supreme Court will be mentioned frequently (did you read it here first?)
Posted by marykeating on May 18, 2010 under Sex-based discrimination |
Yesterday a Manhattan jury wound up almost a week of deliberations and rendered a $3.3 million verdict in favor of the 12 named plaintiffs against Novartis AG. The class of 5,600 female sales representatives in the United States will also be able to continue a second phase of trial, and prove punitive damages. The women complained that since 2002 they were kept out of higher management, and according to their lawyer, “tolerated a culture of sexism, a boys’ club atmosphere.” One woman testified that her boss told her to get an abortion after she reported she was pregnant; others talked about managers who took male sales representatives to strip clubs.
This case represents the second largest employment class action on behalf of women, after the Walmart case recently certified to go forward. The jury found that Novartis had engaged in systematic gender-based discrimination, paying women less than similar male employees, failing to promote women to managerial positions, and treating pregnant women less favorably.
The punitive damage phase will begin today, with the jury being told that the value of the company is $9.5 billion.
Posted by marykeating on April 27, 2010 under Gender orientation discrimination |
Wal-Mart is hoping the Supreme Court will take on its efforts to avoid trying a half million or more sex discrimination cases in a single lawsuit. On Monday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the class action suit to go forward. Fittingly, given Walmart’s status as the largest private employer in the country, it’s the largest class action ever certified. All women employed by Wal-Mart any time after December 26, 1998, were members of the original class action. The new decision certifies as a class all currently employed females with claims that they have been paid less than men, or have been unfairly passed over or made to wait for promotional opportunities as compared with men. This class is eligible to present their claims for back pay and injunctive relief. The trial court will be asked to consider the extent whether to certify the punitive damages claims, and the claims of women who were members of the original class but who no longer work at Wal-Mart.
The case is important for the scope of the claims. The decision pointed out that size alone could not drive the decision to certify a class or make each discrimination case proceed alone. Instead, the issue in class action certification is whether the common issues to be decided predominate. The majority of the Ninth Circuit noted that the trial court had found “significant evidence of company-wide corporate practices and policies, which include (a) excessive subjectivity in personnel decisions, (b) gender stereotyping, and (c) maintenance of a strong corporate culture; (2) statistical evidence of gender disparities caused by discrimination; and (3) anecdotal evidence of gender bias.” 
The 137-page opinion can be accessed through the class action’s website, as can information related to joining the class.
According to one source, the Supreme Court is likely to take an interest in the case. If so, the case will linger for a few more years before any proof is heard.
Posted by marykeating on March 2, 2010 under Sex-based discrimination |
The EEOC just settled a massive sex discrimination case against Walmart. Walmart was accused of refusing to consider women for order filling positions in its Kentucky distribution center, telling applicants that these jobs were not suitable for women. And yes, in case there is any question, these acts occurred in the 21st Century. Walmart will pay $11.7 million and the taxes payable on that amount, plus up to $250,000 in the administrative costs of distributing the money.
Walmart has been the defendant in a number of other cases ranging from disability and race discrimination to wide ranging allegations that its managers required workers to work off the clock. But it has moved past the boycott days, when the systematic refusal to pay benefits and keep hours low put many of its workers on state medical assistance and food stamps.
The EEOC’s website notes that it is hiring more investigators, and it appears to be going after bigger fish, making bigger waves in the fight against discrimination. Its settlements are not secret, and require the employer to be under scrutiny for a period of time, and to make up for past discriminatory actions. In the warehouse case, Walmart will fill the first 50 open positions with women, then give every other position to a woman, and then every third. After those first 150 positions, it is hoped, management at the facility will be used to women working in the warehouse, and will apply neutral standards.
Posted by marykeating on January 11, 2010 under Gender orientation discrimination |
The EEOC negotiated a huge settlement with Outback Steakhouse restaurant chain on behalf of women who were unable to advance because of the company’s glass ceiling.
The management positions at Outback were filled by men. To be considered for management positions, the applicant had to have kitchen experience. Outback, however, did not give women the kitchen jobs. That pattern led to a $19 million settlement that will be shared by a number of women who worked at Outback for at least three years between 2002 and now.
A settlement of this magnitude alone sends a cautionary message, and in most cases should inspire an employer to institute reforms. But the settlement agreement itself requires Outback to make substantive changes in its application procedures, hire a “Vice President for People,” and hire an outside consultant for two years to monitor progress. The EEOC will also require semi-annual reports.
The EEOC obtained a large verdict against Outback in 2001, based on a single instance of sex discrimination in pay, and retaliation against the woman who complained about her male counterpart making nearly double her salary.
Is it possible for a company to reform its discriminatory ways? In this case, the EEOC’s oversight measures are designed to force both change and awareness of the impact of policies that result in discriminatory decisions, even if not consciously made. But cultures favoring one sex or race can be difficult to alter. If the Outback upper management has fostered a corporate culture of men-in-charge, it may not change in any systemic way. On the other hand, the oversight and the boon to the women working at Outback should keep the decisions scrutinized for some time. Perhaps the transparency will require Outback’s culture to evolve.
Posted by marykeating on September 14, 2009 under Sex-based discrimination |
Last year the EEOC sued the Baltimore supermarket chain, Mars Super Markets, Inc., in the United States District Court in Baltimore, alleging sex discrimination. It accused the supermarket of refusing to permit women employees from becoming meat cutters in its deli departments. After a clerk in the Dundalk store was refused the job, the EEOC investigated and discovered a pattern, and filed suit in federal district court.
Mars agreed to settle the case earlier this month. In addition to paying a settlement of $275,000 to several women who were illegally denied these jobs, Mars agreed to train its supervisors in avoiding discrimination, to offer meat cutter jobs to women who had previously been denied them, to develop meat cutter job descriptions, to keep better records, and to post notices about the employees’ rights.
This case is a little unusual in its pattern of discrimination. It seems that most employers have caught on to the laws against gender discrimination, and the complaints of discrimination are often based on subtle indications of bias. In this case, though, the supermarket is accused of applying a blanket prohibition against women becoming meat cutters. Why – because men are thought to have superior physical strength? Or some notion that it’s a masculine job? In any event, Mars is taking detailed steps to prevent the same prejudices from barring women from performing this job.
