Walmart or Revolution
Published in El Pais
(Spain) on 5 April 2011
by Editorial (link to original)
The United States Supreme Court has a hot potato in their hands. Last Tuesday, it decided to examine the case of Wal-Mart, the retail chain that is the country's largest private employer and is accused by a group of women of systematically discriminating against its female employees. The plaintiffs provide testimony and statistics showing that female employees at Wal-Mart earn less than their male colleagues and are also given proportionately fewer promotions.
It comes down to one simple fact: 70 percent of Wal-Mart workers are women, but only 15 percent have achieved a managerial position. Therefore, the plaintiffs have been suing for a decade to be heard as part of a class-action lawsuit, due to the discriminatory culture of the company that affects all employees. If the Supreme Court accepts the case in such terms, all companies in the country are going to get very nervous (the decision will be known before the summer). Therefore, 20 major companies, including General Electric and Microsoft, have expressed their solidarity with Wal-Mart before the judges.
What is at stake is not only a multimillion-dollar compensation. If they win the lawsuit, Wal-Mart would have to compensate 1.5 million employees, a real drain on the firm. The added problem, even more disturbing and revolutionary, is the legal precedent it would set. The Supreme Court judges know it, and clearly expressed it when they opened the case last Tuesday.
How many companies would face similar lawsuits then, they wondered? Wal-Mart is a typical company, said Judge Samuel Alito to the lawyer for the plaintiffs. “You would say every single company is in violation of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]?” he asked.
This case is definitely a hot potato because of its enormous potential to transform the labor market and also curb the interests of private enterprise. Betty Dukes, a 61-year-old black woman, is leading the lawsuit in a country that is very sensitive to any type of discrimination, which is prohibited, in fact, by the Civil Rights Act. Thus, the reply to Alito's question to the counsel for the plaintiffs was without hesitation, “That could very well be the case.”
It comes down to one simple fact: 70 percent of Wal-Mart workers are women, but only 15 percent have achieved a managerial position. Therefore, the plaintiffs have been suing for a decade to be heard as part of a class-action lawsuit, due to the discriminatory culture of the company that affects all employees. If the Supreme Court accepts the case in such terms, all companies in the country are going to get very nervous (the decision will be known before the summer). Therefore, 20 major companies, including General Electric and Microsoft, have expressed their solidarity with Wal-Mart before the judges.
What is at stake is not only a multimillion-dollar compensation. If they win the lawsuit, Wal-Mart would have to compensate 1.5 million employees, a real drain on the firm. The added problem, even more disturbing and revolutionary, is the legal precedent it would set. The Supreme Court judges know it, and clearly expressed it when they opened the case last Tuesday.
How many companies would face similar lawsuits then, they wondered? Wal-Mart is a typical company, said Judge Samuel Alito to the lawyer for the plaintiffs. “You would say every single company is in violation of Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act]?” he asked.
This case is definitely a hot potato because of its enormous potential to transform the labor market and also curb the interests of private enterprise. Betty Dukes, a 61-year-old black woman, is leading the lawsuit in a country that is very sensitive to any type of discrimination, which is prohibited, in fact, by the Civil Rights Act. Thus, the reply to Alito's question to the counsel for the plaintiffs was without hesitation, “That could very well be the case.”
Next article![]( "The “Globdists” No Longer Like Obama")
