Wal-Mart: Too Big to Sue?

December 10, 2010

By Lisa Bennett, NOW Communications Director

On Dec. 6, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear retail giant Wal-Mart's challenge to a class-action lawsuit against the company involving more than 1.5 million women. Wal-Mart did not ask the high court to review the actual charges that the company routinely discriminated against its women employees. Instead, the challenge seeks to halt the largest-ever discrimination case in the country before it even gets to trial.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld certification of the class-action suit three times, most recently in April 2010. But Wal-Mart argues that each employee should be forced to file their complaints on an individual basis because a suit this size is too unwieldy and potentially costly.

"First we have banks that are 'too big to fail' -- now Wal-Mart's lawyers are claiming that the company is too big to sue!" exclaims NOW President Terry O'Neill. "Well, guess what? When you're the biggest employer in the nation and the richest company in the world, and you get that way by paying unfair wages, you should expect to find yourself on the wrong end of a massive lawsuit one day. It comes with the territory, so Wal-Mart should stop trying to con its way out of court."

NOW has a history of taking on Wal-Mart. In 2002, the organization named Wal-Mart a "Merchant of Shame" for its notorious employment practices and workplace environment. Chapter activists held educational pickets outside Wal-Mart stores nationwide, handing out fliers explaining the facts about Wal-Mart's discriminatory ways.

Those shameful facts include: women earning nearly a quarter less, on average, than men, despite greater average seniority and higher performance ratings; women concentrated in lower-paying hourly jobs and being paid less even when they held the same jobs as men; women receiving raises at a slower rate than men, thus expanding the pay gap; women waiting longer for promotions and serving in management in proportions dramatically lower than the retailer's competitors.

In addition, Wal-Mart was criticized for excluding contraceptive coverage in insurance plans, violating child labor laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and discriminating 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.

"For years, the Wal-Mart empire has been built upon miserly wages that consistently were even more pitiful for women," says O'Neill. "The Wal-Mart executives who have profited from these practices should have the guts to face in court the women they cheated. I hope the Supreme Court will set aside its usual pro-business stance to grant these women the day in court they so richly deserve."

The court will hear the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case in the spring, with a decision to be announced by the end of June 2011.

Read more about NOW's work on Wal-Mart