What's at Stake for Women in Wal-Mart v. Dukes

 On Tuesday, March 29, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Wal-Mart v. Dukes case. In addition, our Public Policy Film and Book Meeting will watch Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price. 5:30 pm in the Kingston Library Community Room.

What's at Stake for Women in Wal-Mart v. Dukes: "Set against the backdrop of widespread disparities in pay, there is a tremendous amount at stake in the pay and promotions discrimination class action that will be argued in the Supreme Court on March 29th. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the Supreme Court will determine whether a nationwide class of women workers challenging alleged sex discrimination by Wal-Mart in pay and promotions can proceed. According to the plaintiffs’ evidence, women at Wal-Mart on average earned $5,000 less than men, even though women tended to have higher performance ratings and more seniority. Women also were less likely to be promoted to store manager positions and had to wait significantly longer for promotions than men. The Court’s decision will also effectively determine whether workers can continue to challenge company-wide discrimination by larger employers."

Title VII was intended to eradicate precisely the type of pernicious discrimination that is alleged in this case. Indeed, a company-wide class challenge is the only effective way to remedy company-wide discriminatory practices. With the average wage gap at 77 percent, women and their families are watching closely to see whether the Court’s holding will continue to allow the class action vehicle to be a critical tool for employees to challenge pay discrimination. In this economy, the stakes could not be higher.

AAUW's Legal Action Fund supports the plaintiff's case financially. Join us and bring a friend to discuss the film and its implications for us personally and as a branch.

Fighting It Out In Court: Dukes v. Wal-Mart

Image via Wikipedia

AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund Supports Gender Discrimination Suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

WASHINGTON – The AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund announced today that it is awarding monetary support to the case Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Lead plaintiff Betty Dukes, a Wal-Mart employee, has alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies and practices in Wal-Mart retail stores. Plaintiffs for the case comprise a class of approximately 1.6 million female Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club employees.

Case History
In 2001, Dukes and other lead plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in order to further pursue the case as a class action. Wal-Mart appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, then to a three-judge panel of the same court, and then to the full en banc court. The class certification was affirmed after all three appeals, and now Wal-Mart is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the court affirms the class certification, the case will become the largest civil rights class action suit in the nation’s history.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on December 6, 2010, and oral arguments on the class certification have been set for March 29, 2011.

Why AAUW Supports This Case
“AAUW is proud to lend our support to the lead plaintiffs of this groundbreaking case,” said AAUW Executive Director Linda D. Hallman, CAE. “There is no chance that each of the 1.6 million female employees has the financial resources, time, and patience to pursue her own case against Wal-Mart. AAUW strongly believes that these women’s voices should be heard and that they should be able to stand together to fight for their families’ economic well-being. Class action cases also have a much stronger deterrent effect, showing the business community that discrimination is not good for the bottom line.”

AAUW Legal Advocacy Fund support has been instrumental to the success of many gender discrimination cases during LAF’s 30-year history. Other LAF initiatives include community and campus outreach programs, a resource library and online advocacy tools, a Legal Referral Network, and various research reports.

"Wal-Mart claims this case is too big to bring as a class action, but there is no big company exception to the civil rights laws,” said Equal Rights Advocates Executive Director Arcelia Hurtado. “The reality is that without a class action, the women working at Wal-Mart will never have their day in court. The women have been treated unequally as a class, and they should be able to assert their rights as a class."

AAUW’s strategic case support program provides financial and organizational backing for a select number of cases that have the potential to provide significant protection for all women. The funds come directly from the generous contributions of AAUW members who support the Legal Advocacy Fund.

###

This blog is published by the AAUW Kingston, NY Branch. The American Association of University Women (AAUW) advances equity for women and girls through advocacy, education, philanthropy, and research. Since 1881, AAUW has been one of the nation's leading voices promoting education and equity for women and girls. AAUW has a nationwide network of more than 100,000 members and donors, 1,000 branches, and 500 college/university institutional partners. Since AAUW's founding 130 years ago, members have examined and taken positions on the fundamental issues of the day — educational, social, economic, and political. AAUW's commitment to educational equity is reflected in its public policy advocacy, community programs, leadership development, conventions and conferences, national partnerships, and international connections. 

Workplace Stalking Case Update

AAUW has been following harrassment and stalking suits in the workplace. This month, Dawn Martin has requested a re-hearing before the Supreme Court in her case Martin v. Howard.

Here's an update and a link to a fascinating interview (streaming video) with Dawn, Derek Bell, and others supporting her case on Insider Exclusive TV.

The case, short version:
Ms. Martin was stalked at Howard Law School where she was on faculty by a deranged homeless man who believed she was the physical embodiment of a fictional woman in a novel by Derek Bell. Howard did not take reasonable steps, or follow its own security procedures, to protect her and refused to renew her teaching contract because, Martin alleges, she asked for on-campus protection.

In 2006, after a trial, the jury agreed with Prof. Martin that harassment did create a “hostile work environment” for her and that Howard did not take reasonable steps to end it; yet, the jury verdict was for Howard. With insufficient legal instruction from the Court, the confused jurors found that the harassment was not based on sex; Prof. Martin’s complaints were not therefore not “protected activity” under Title VII.

The Supreme Court initially declined to review Martin, but nine days later, it decided Crawford v. Crawford which clarified that “protected activity” under Title VII is a question of law for the Court, not a factual question for a jury.

On February 9, 2009, therefore, Ms. Martin filed a motion to supplement her Petition for Rehearing, to include the law set by Crawford. Under Crawford, the jury should never have been required to decide this legal question.

The Supreme Court has never addressed the issue of workplace stalking. The application of “gender profiling” to sexual harassment cases will also set precedent for racial, ethnic, religious groups in profiling harassment cases under Title VII and other EEO statutes.

For more details and links to other cites discussing the case, see www.dvmartinlaw.com/MartinvHowardU.