Wal-Mart Settlement in First LGBT Workers' Class Action Reflects Larger Shift
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s multimillion-dollar agreement this week to compensate employees who were refused benefits for same-sex partners marks one of the first class action settlements brought on behalf of LGBT workers, and it comes at a time when the legal and corporate landscapes are moving toward embracing equal protections.
May 19, 2017 at 04:26 PM
6 minute read
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s multimillion-dollar agreement this week to compensate employees who were refused benefits for same-sex partners marks one of the first class action settlements brought on behalf of LGBT workers, and it comes at a time when the legal and corporate landscapes are moving toward embracing equal protections.
A Boston federal judge approved the settlement on Tuesday to end a lawsuit that accused the retail giant of discriminating against gay and lesbian employees in denying health insurance benefits to same-sex spouses. Under the deal, Wal-Mart will set aside $7.5 million to compensate employees affected by the denial three years before it changed its policy. It also covers legal fees and expenses.
This decision could represent the latest in a rapid shift toward LGBT protections in the workplace, a move spurred not only by the interest of companies that feel social pressure but also by the courts, where a company's failure to offer equal protections could become a liability.
“This class action settlement breaks new ground,” the attorneys for the plaintiffs said in court documents. “This is the first class action brought on behalf of LGBTQ workers to be certified and settled, and hopefully the settlement of this action will inspire other LGBTQ workers to employ the class action device to secure equal rights in the future.”
Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor who leads the school's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, agreed that this was the first such case and said as corporate norms are changing, the courts are moving side by side to say sexual orientation discrimination cannot be permitted.
“The decision to settle reflects a recognition that it is no longer acceptable for major employers to discriminate against their lesbian and gay employees,” Goldberg said. “It recognizes that discrimination is bad for business in many respects. It hurts recruitment and retention and can hurt company in its sales and marketing efforts.”
The case—Cote v. Wal-Mart Stores—was filed after Wal-Mart voluntarily made health insurance benefits available to same-sex spouses in 2014. As part of the settlement, Wal-Mart committed to continuing to do so in the future. The settlement will affect several thousand current and former associates who did not receive benefits between 2011 and 2013.
Attorneys for the chain did not respond to request for comment about broader implications of the settlement.
Peter Romer-Friedman, an Outten & Golden attorney in Washington who represented Cote, declined to comment on the settlement. When asked broadly about the issues the lawsuit raised, he said that most large companies are now giving equal health and pension benefits to employees who have same-sex spouses.
“There certainly are companies out there that discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of benefits, but most employers have taken the step of ensuring that they have equal benefits,” Romer-Friedman said. He noted guidance from the U.S. Labor Department in 2013 that required Employee Retirement Income Security Act plans to extend benefits to same-sex couples.
“As a result, most big companies that have sophisticated counsel are following that guidance,” Romer-Friedman added. He also noted federal courts are increasingly recognizing that LGBT workers are protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment discrimination based on sex.
A recent federal appeals court ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit in Chicago said that discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation violates the Civil Rights Act. It was hailed a landmark decision by gay rights advocates. Other federal appeals courts, including the Eleventh District, have ruled that the Civil Rights Act does not include protections for gay or bisexual employees.
Yet, some observers say that public pressure has already pushed many major companies toward equality for gay and lesbian workers.
The Human Rights Campaign, which provides an equality index to examine whether employers protect LGBT workers, shows in its annual reports that most Fortune 100 companies adopted policies to provide equal protections for gay and lesbian workers.
The 2017 report saw the largest increase in businesses in the history of the survey, 515 employers, earning perfect scores. Businesses offering transgender inclusive health care coverage also jumped from 511 to 647 companies over the year.
“These businesses know that LGBTQ equality isn't just the right thing to do, it makes them stronger in our global economy,” wrote Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign. “Ensuring fairness in the workplace is a value and increasingly a policy norm, and not just in the U.S.”
He added: “The nation's largest employers have demonstrated through their actions that LGBTQ people are not just tolerated, but welcomed in their workplaces and communities. Even with all of this progress, we know that policies and benefits make up the crucial foundation, but not the totality, of what's needed to ensure that LGBTQ workers can thrive from the plant floor to the corner office.”
State and local governments have also passed laws to address equal rights for gay and lesbians, but Griffin called for consistent federal protections in employment, housing, credit and public services.
Mark Konkel, a Kelley Drye & Warren partner in New York who represents employers, said companies are often following public sentiment, even without the federal protections.
“They are implementing policies, regardless of federal law, to avoid discrimination,” Konkel said. “The zeitgeist is way out ahead of the probable enforcement climate.” He added: “For major companies, their employment policies go way beyond minimal compliance. That will become more true.”
Copyright The National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
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 AllReported Refusal to Officiate Gay Wedding Prompts Review by NY Judicial Misconduct Watchdog
Why ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Michael Cohen Loses Bid for Supreme Court Review of Civil Rights Lawsuit
ACLU's Strangio Will Become First Openly Trans Attorney to Argue at Supreme Court
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