Terminator X
20th June 2011, 18:38
The high court on Monday rejected a massive job discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart (http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-rules-for-wal-mart-in-massive-job-discrimination-lawsuit/) Stores, Inc., on the grounds that the class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was too large.
In other words, because there is reason to believe that Walmart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women, as opposed to just a few, the company cannot be held to account for any lawlessness.
That's a big win for Walmart, and for other large firms that may not choose to treat employees fairly.
At the same time, it's a big loss for working Americans —and especially for working women. This case, which began as Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (http://ufcw.blogspot.com/search?q=dukes+v.+walmart) had the potential to be a groundbreaking gender-bias action. Its significance to working women cannot be underestimated; the women who sued, led by veteran Walmart employee Betty Dukes, argued that 1.6 million current and former female employees of Walmart employees were subject to discrimination —passed over for claimed promotions, tracked into lower-wage positions and generally getting paid less than male employees.
Individual women can still sue Walmart. But their options and opportunities will be limited by their isolation and economic circumstance. As Walmart Watch (http://walmartwatch.org/press/press-release-walmart-associates-june-16-11/) notes: Walmart Associates live on poverty-level wages and often do not have access to benefits. Walmart’s average sales Associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of 34 hours per week, well below the poverty line for a family of four. Additionally in 2010, Walmart’s health insurance covered only 54 percent of their Associates while tens of thousands of Associates qualify for Medicaid and other publicly subsidized care."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/161556/supreme-court-decides-walmarts-too-big-justice-corporation
In other words, because there is reason to believe that Walmart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women, as opposed to just a few, the company cannot be held to account for any lawlessness.
That's a big win for Walmart, and for other large firms that may not choose to treat employees fairly.
At the same time, it's a big loss for working Americans —and especially for working women. This case, which began as Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (http://ufcw.blogspot.com/search?q=dukes+v.+walmart) had the potential to be a groundbreaking gender-bias action. Its significance to working women cannot be underestimated; the women who sued, led by veteran Walmart employee Betty Dukes, argued that 1.6 million current and former female employees of Walmart employees were subject to discrimination —passed over for claimed promotions, tracked into lower-wage positions and generally getting paid less than male employees.
Individual women can still sue Walmart. But their options and opportunities will be limited by their isolation and economic circumstance. As Walmart Watch (http://walmartwatch.org/press/press-release-walmart-associates-june-16-11/) notes: Walmart Associates live on poverty-level wages and often do not have access to benefits. Walmart’s average sales Associate makes $8.81 per hour, according to IBISWorld, an independent market research group. This translates to annual pay of $15,576, based upon Walmart’s full-time status of 34 hours per week, well below the poverty line for a family of four. Additionally in 2010, Walmart’s health insurance covered only 54 percent of their Associates while tens of thousands of Associates qualify for Medicaid and other publicly subsidized care."
http://www.thenation.com/blog/161556/supreme-court-decides-walmarts-too-big-justice-corporation