[Vision2020] Wal-Mart Must face Bias Trial, Circuit Court Says

[Tom Hansen]

As a follow-up to Tim Rigsby's posting at:
 
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2007-February/041056.html

I anticipate that our television screens will soon be deluged with a parade
of gratuitous female Wal-Mart mid-level managers who have just recently (and
might I add, temporarily) been promoted, one of which will not only be
female, but also Jewish, gay, elderly, and disabled (primarily as a defense
mechanism against potential future class action lawsuits).

>From today's (February 7, 2007) Spokesman Review -

------------------------------------------------------------------

Wal-Mart must face bias trial, circuit court says 
Ruling backs allegation of nationwide gender discrimination

Associated Press 
February 7, 2007

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that Wal-Mart Stores
Inc., the world's largest private employer, must face a class-action lawsuit
alleging female employees were discriminated against in pay and promotions.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds a 2004 federal
judge's decision to let the nation's largest class-action employment
discrimination lawsuit go to trial. The suit claims that as many as 1.5
million current and former female employees earned less than men and were
bypassed for promotions.

The lawsuit exposes the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailing powerhouse to the
possibility of billions of dollars in damages.

Wal-Mart claimed that the conventional rules of class actions should not
apply in the case because its 3,400 stores, including Sam's Club warehouse
outlets, operate like independent businesses, and that the company did not
have a policy of discriminating against women.

But the court, in a 2-1 decision, disagreed.

"Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and
anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of
discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees
nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of
discrimination," the court wrote.

U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins, the San Francisco trial court judge who
said the case could proceed, had ruled that lawyers for the women had enough
anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial. Wal-Mart took the case
to the San Francisco-based appeals court.

Jenkins said if companywide gender discrimination is proven at trial,
Wal-Mart could be forced to pay billions of dollars to women who earned less
than their male counterparts, with no opportunity to dispute their
individual circumstances.

Jenkins said it was "impractical on its face" to have individual hearings
for each plaintiff and had planned to use a statistical formula to
compensate the women.

Wal-Mart, in seeking dismissal of the case, called that an unprecedented
denial of its rights. Wal-Mart said women who allege they were discriminated
against can file lawsuits against individual stores. The women's lawyers
said the idea was ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary.

Brad Seligman, one of the attorneys who represented the women suing
Wal-Mart, said he suspected Wal-Mart would ask the appeals court to rehear
the case with a panel of 15 judges. But he said the decision would hurt the
company's reputation.

"No amount of PR by Wal-Mart is going to allow it to deal with its legacy of
discrimination," Seligman said.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said the company was not immediately
prepared to comment.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho


"If not us, who?
If not now, when?"

- Unknown