Female Workers File 2 Gender Discrimination Suits Against Walmart
Two complaints alleging systemic gender discrimination in the retail giant were filed in the Southern District of Florida on Feb. 1. A case with similar claims was submitted Nov. 6.
February 08, 2019 at 03:42 PM
4 minute read
Two complaints filed in the Southern District of Florida allege Florida-based Walmart stores discriminated against female employees, paying them less, withholding pay increases and bypassing them for managerial promotions given to their male counterparts.
Both suits charge Walmart with several violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the premise of their race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. In total, they list nearly 100 female plaintiffs.
These latest complaints against Walmart follow a November 2017 suit filed in the Southern District of Florida, alleging disparate treatment of female employees.
Accusations of gender bias have trailed Walmart in court for nearly two decades. In 2001, for instance, store greeter Betty Dukes filed suit, accusing the world's largest retail chain of gender discrimination. Dukes' class action ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which dismissed it for being too expansive.
“The U.S. Supreme Court said the class action was inappropriate for a case so large,” said Cathleen Scott, an employment and civil rights attorney based in Jupiter. Scott, who is representing the plaintiffs in all three actions against Walmart in the Southern District of Florida, explained regional suits against the company began to take form after Dukes' case was dismissed. However, “procedural delays and appeals,” as well as the procurement of right-to-sue letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission slowed the litigation.
“Our women have been wanting and waiting to go forward for years,” Scott said. “Even though they're individual claims, they support a very common story of systemic discrimination throughout Walmart, as it relates to pay and promotion.”
Read one of the complaints:
According to Scott, Walmart's policies are deeply rooted in gender stereotypes that even determine where employees might be assigned in a store.
“When a female applies for a position, (she) might be placed as a cashier or in the lingerie and cosmetics departments,” Scott said. “In comparison, when men apply for a position, they're allowed to get a high-grossing department like sports or electronics.” Adding that “it's hard to go from cashier to store manager,” Scott said many female Walmart employees allege they're prevented from pursuing promotional opportunities from the moment they're hired.
In a statement Friday, Walmart said it “has had a strong policy against discrimination in place for many years,” and that the company is “a great place for women to work and advance.”
“The allegations from these plaintiffs are not representative of the positive experiences that millions of women have had working at Walmart,” the statement read. “We've said all along that if someone believes they have been treated unfairly, they deserve to have their timely, individual claims heard in court. We plan to defend the company against these claims.”
Scott said she and her co-counsel are ”prepared to do what it takes” to secure a legal victory for their clients.
“My firm's a civil rights firm, so we have a lot of energy and passion for these types of cases,” she said. “Our clients have waited almost a decade to have their cases heard. They're looking forward to the opportunity to finally get some justice.”
Related stories:
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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