Walmart Faces New Round of Gender Discrimination Suits Based on 2001 Dukes Complaint
The Betty Dukes case still haunts Walmart's legal department, which is having to deal with the latest round of gender discrimination lawsuits filed by hundreds of women across a dozen states, according to the civil rights lawyer who's been behind the litigation since the beginning.
May 14, 2019 at 05:53 PM
5 minute read
The ghost of Betty Dukes still haunts the aisles of Walmart Inc.—and the halls of Walmart's legal department, which is having to deal with the latest round of gender discrimination lawsuits.
Dukes, the former Walmart worker who died last July, led 1.5 million women into a class action lawsuit on gender discrimination in 2001, only to see the U.S. Supreme Court toss it on a technical ruling over procedure, not on the merits, in 2011.
Now in the footsteps of Dukes several hundred women across a dozen states or more are filing individual discrimination suits against Walmart, according to Christine Webber, a civil rights lawyer and partner with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Washington, D.C.
The law firm was co-lead counsel on the Dukes class action and is now helping to coordinate the state suits with local law firms.
Webber, who worked nine years on the Dukes case, told Corporate Counsel on Tuesday the new suits represent the first of 1,800 women, most of whom were part of the original Dukes action. They are claiming discrimination in pay and promotions at the world's largest retailer.
“We have unfinished business that we are determined to see through to the end,” she said. “We have really tremendous clients who have been sticking with their claims for many years.”
Randy Hargrove, Walmart's senior director of national media relations, said the company plans to defend against the gender bias claims.
“Walmart has had a strong policy against discrimination in place for many years and we continue to be a great place for women to work and advance,” Hargrove said. “In fact last year, 57 percent of our U.S. hourly promotions were women as were 43 percent of U.S. management promotions.”
Walmart has enacted a model diversity program that especially impacted its in-house legal department, which grew from a handful of women lawyers in 1998 to 42% in 2005 and 46% a year ago.
In addition, its chief legal officer and group general counsel are female, as are 6 of 14 division general counsel. That includes this month's appointment of Jeanine Jiganti to the new position of general counsel for health and wellness.
The changes have not stopped the plaintiffs. Webber said complaints alleging gender discrimination already have been filed through local law firms in six states: Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia, with more expected this week in Ohio and California. They total 19 cases involving 150 female plaintiffs so far.
Some are suing alone, she said, while others are in small groups who shared work situations, such as the same regions or managers. “The jury will still be asked about each individual and not the group,” Webber explained.
Preparations are underway for suits in five more states: Alabama, Iowa, Illinois, Mississippi and Texas in the coming months, she added. There will probably be more beyond that, she said.
Webber has worked at Cohen Milstein for 21 years. In the Dukes case, she said she was heavily involved in taking depositions and coordinating discovery. Later she said she was one of a four-person team that drafted the Dukes class certification brief.
Reversing a lower court, the Supreme Court ruled the group was too expansive and there were too many differences among members to be certified as a class.
Before Cohen Milstein, Webber worked as an in-house counsel for four years at the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs from 1993 to 1997.
After Dukes, she helped bring regional class action suits against Walmart on behalf of smaller groups of women. As they neared oral arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in an unrelated case that the statute of limitations could bar these class actions, though not individual suits.
“Procedural hurdles continued to be put before our clients,” Webber said, but the 1,800 women and their lawyers regrouped again. They won their right to sue letters from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and began bringing actions one by one.
Hargrove said the plaintiffs' allegations are more than 15 years old “and are not representative of the positive experiences millions of women have had working at Walmart.”
He said Walmart outpaces the current S&P 500 female representation at the corporate officer level. Women represent 32% of corporate officers at Walmart while the S&P 500 average is 27%, he said.
Hargrove also said women represent 25% of the Walmart board, outpacing the S&P 500 average of 21%.
He added since 2016 more than 800,000 Walmart associates have gone through a special training academy, with 60% of them being women. “We are committed to creating a performance culture where associates are rewarded based on meaningful factors such as qualifications, experience [and] performance,” he said.
Webber conceded that most of the claims are based on pre-2010 Walmart behavior.
“I'm certainly not suggesting that there has been no change,” she said. “Walmart has made changes in practices and increased the number of women in management. But it's still not where we would expect it to be.”
Walmart's legal team is apparently being led by Littler Mendelson, according to Webber, who said she saw that law firm defending Walmart in the regional suits and continues to see it in the state actions.
Hargrove said Walmart generally does not discuss its outside counsel, and Littler managing director Thomas Bender wouldn't comment. He directed calls to Jennifer Klein, director of public relations, who did not return the message.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute read$25M Grubhub Settlement Sheds Light on How Other Gig Economy Firms Can Avoid Regulatory Trouble
8 minute readEx-Red Robin CLO Joins Norton Rose Fulbright After Helping Sell Latest Employer for $4.9 Billion
Albertsons Gives Up on $25B Merger, Sues Kroger Seeking 'Billions of Dollars'
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250