As per the Equal Employment Opportunities of the United States Code, the issue of contrasting wages and promotion standards based on an employee’s sex is, indeed, unlawful. In the Case of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart, there is a clear ground that unlawful actions within the confines of Wal-Mart employment may probably exist. This claim is further supported by the Equal Pay Act of 1963 Minimum Wage, as it claims that equal workload with the same working conditions should receive equal treatment in terms of compensation and promotions.
However, Wal-Mart has been trying to disperse the case from a class action to individual cases filed towards its individual branches. My legal conclusion on this case is subject to the fact that if the evidence presented by the plaintiff on a corporate culture of discrimination exists in Wal-Mart, then there is indeed a breach of law in the U. S. Code and the Equal Pay Act of 1963. The only reservation, however, is if Wal-Mart would provide evidence that this corporate culture does not exist.
Furthermore, Wal-Mart must prove that the female sector of the company is less interested on promotions and higher wages than the male sector. Without these terms, it should be absolute that there is indeed a culture of discrimination based on the factual figures presented by the plaintiffs. Therefore, Wal-Mart should be accountable for the damages it has done to its female employees. The issue of the appeal made by Wal-Mart regarding the class certification has been rightfully denied by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This ruling upholds the granting of the class action status to this gender discrimination lawsuit.
With this decision made, it is definite that this case is based on major corporate culture discrimination (Five Stones & The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics, 2007). For this case to be justified, Wal-Mart, if proven unable to conform to the law, should be just in its behavior towards its female employees, both current and former. There should be actions made to fulfill accountability for the damages done. First, Wal-Mart should settle previous and current damages in terms of compensation to all its female employees. Wal-Mart should offer settlement to all its female employees for the time spent in the company.
This is because of the damages on the possibilities of career growth of the female employees within their tenure. If Wal-Mart is proven to have discriminated its female employees, it should be definite that career-growth of the female employees was compromised. Thus, proper settlement between Wal-Mart and its female employees should be established. The responsibilities that would be imposed to Wal-Mart should cover its review and amendment of its employment policies. Managers of Wal-Mart should be briefed on social awareness to eradicate biasness and discrimination in the workplace.
This is because the managers are the ones in charge of the individual branches of Wal-Mart. Thus, they are also the ones to oversee adherence to rightful social conduct within the confines of their retail stores. In conclusion, the corporate culture of unconscious biasness in Wal-Mart should be dealt with accordingly in court. It should be absolute that discrimination exists if there is no clear evidence that career growth is less revered by the female employees of Wal-Mart, and if there are no clear indications of a culture of bias within its members.
If proven that discrimination exists within the confines of Wal-Mart, settlements should take place between the company and its female employees. This is to reconcile the damages done for having the career growth of the female employees compromised. Also, Wal-Mart should establish a sustainable program, along with a review and amendment of its policies. All these should widen the companies understanding of and accountability to social awareness.
Curry, M. (2004). Wal-Mart class action gender discrimination case holds. Business Training Media. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from http://www. business-marketing. com/store/article-walmart.html.
Five Stones & The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics. (2007a). Discrimination against women. Wal-Mart Watch. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from http://walmartwatch. com/issues/discrimination/. Five Stones & The Center for Community and Corporate Ethics. (2007b). Gender discrimination at Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart Watch, Spring 2007, 1, 3. Retrieved December 2, 2008 from http://walmartwatch. com/img/blog/gender_discrimination. pdf. Millman, J. (2007, February 7).