What do you think of the recent class-action sex discrimination cases?

[pmbryant]

From the Washington Post today: Costco Is the Latest Class-Action Target

Costco Is the Latest Class-Action Target
Lawyers' Interest Increases in Potentially Lucrative Discrimination Suits

By Brooke A. Masters and Amy Joyce
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 18, 2004; Page A01


A wave of high-profile, class-action lawsuits and settlements this summer has raised allegations of race and sex discrimination in pay and promotion at some of the nation's best-known corporations, a list that expanded yesterday to include retailer Costco Wholesale Corp.

Last month, investment bank Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million to settle claims that it underpaid and did not promote women. A few days later, aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. agreed to pay up to $72.5 million to settle similar allegations. That same month, a group of black employees sued Eastman Kodak Co. accusing the company of systemic race discrimination, and an Alabama judge held a hearing on an ongoing race discrimination case against BellSouth Corp.

In June, a federal judge ruled that a sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation's largest retailer, could proceed as a class action involving as many as 1.6 million women, although Wal-Mart has persuaded an appeals court to review the ruling. Gaithersburg food-service giant Sodexho Inc. is scheduled to go to trial in November over accusations that it failed to promote black managers.

The prominent cases are rooted, in part, in 1991 civil rights legislation that allowed victims of employment discrimination to seek punitive and compensatory damages, according to academics and lawyers who represent both employers and employees. The change makes such lawsuits potentially more lucrative for law firms, which have begun building the expertise to pursue them.

The discrimination cases come from all over the country and make a variety of claims, but some common threads run through them. The claims tend to focus on pay and promotion rather than hiring, they rely heavily on statistical evidence of race or sex disparities, and so far, most of them haven't gone to trial. In most cases, either the employer wins when a judge or an appeals court refuses to allow the case to go forward as a group action or the employees win when the class is certified and the two sides settle.

(snip)

Myself, I think this is a fabulous development. The reason a huge gender pay gap still exists in this country, despite 40-year old laws like the Equal Pay Act, is because no one has been holding employers' feet to the fire to do the right thing.

As a result, progress has been excruciatingly slow.

I am hoping lawsuits like the recent ones against Costco, Wal-Mart, Morgan Stanley, etc, will finally kick the bad apples in corporate America into gear and make them realize that they can't get away with this kind of behavior any longer.

I hope that is not merely wishful thinking.

What does everyone else think about these developments?

--Peter

[Mel]

1. this has to happen

and your right it's about holding employers feet to the fire but also it's one more reason as to why ERA should be passed.

I happen to think this is one constitutional amendment that should be done before the hatriots right-wing congresscritters bring up their homophobic marriage amendment.

If they are so worried about 'the family' womens rights ERA should be First on their list when it comes to amending the constitution! Course, we know that's not what they are about!

http://www.equalrightsamendment.org/why.htm
<snip>We need the ERA because we need a clearer and stricter federal judicial standard for deciding cases of sex discrimination. Lower-court decisions in the various circuits and states (some with state ERA's and some without) still reflect confusion and inconsistency about how to deal with sex discrimination claims. Sex discrimination should get the same judicial scrutiny as race discrimination.</snip>

[pmbryant]

3. ERA is good and necessary, but won't address the problem of enforcement

From that ERA website you linked to:

We need the ERA because until we have it, women will have to continue to fight long, expensive, and difficult political and judicial battles to ensure that their rights are constitutionally equal to the rights automatically granted to males on the basis of sex.

Unfortunately, even with an ERA, women will still have to "fight long, expensive, and difficult political and judicial battles", especially the judicial ones.

That particular fight appears to be heating up at the moment, and it's about time.

Peter

[sybylla]

2. I think you're right

The bad actors have never been forced to realize financial punishment for failing to comply with laws like the Equal Pay Act. Complaints from an individual are difficult to demonstrate in court with any success. But institutionalized bad behavior is much easier to see. I think these suits are the only thing that will change a corporate culture based upon the "dollar is king" philosophy.

[elehhhhna]

4. If the trial lawyers would shaddup about this stuff, it would go away...

sarcasm off

[pmbryant]

5. Good point

It is much harder for companies to explain away massive statistical imbalances than it is to explain away why a particular individual wasn't treated fairly.

--Peter

[pmbryant]

6. Kick

Certainly there's some more interest in this subject here. :-)

Peter

[Arbustosux]

7. Time to get Fat Pay!

As somebody in personnel, this stuff makes me sick. Its NEVER the employee's fault!

[pmbryant]

8. How is this the employee's fault?

This is from a WSJ article posted on DU yesterday: http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040817/ACQDJON200408171452DOWJONESDJONLINE000525.htm&

The suit alleges the Issaquah, Wash., membership-warehouse chain fails to provide job-posting and application procedures for assistant-manager and general-manager positions and doesn't have any written promotion criteria for those jobs.

As a result, the suit says, women make up one-half of the company's hourly workers but only one in six of its stores' assistant-manager and general-manager positions are held by women. Companywide, women make up 26% of the managerial ranks. In comparison, women on average hold more than 33% of managerial positions in similar retail chains, according to 2000 Department of Labor statistics cited in the suit.

(snip)

Each Costco has two assistant managers and a general manager. According to the suit, a general manager typically makes about $100,000 a year in salary and bonuses, but is also available for stock options. Nationwide, fewer than 12% of Costco's general managers are women. Only two of the company's 30 executive and senior officers are women.

In the absence of stated promotional criteria and companywide application process at Costco, promotions are based on a "tap on the shoulder ... usually made by one of Costco's all-male operational vice presidents," according to the suit.

It is ever the employers' fault? And how do you expect people to seek justice for those cases when it is?

--Peter

[Vladimir]

9. Welcome and long overdue n/t