Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wal-mart. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query wal-mart. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, December 20, 2014

Workers Assail Night Lock-Ins By Wal-Mart

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com

Looking back to that night, Michael Rodriguez still has trouble believing the situation he faced when he was stocking shelves on the overnight shift at the Sam's Club in Corpus Christi, Tex.

It was 3 a.m., Mr. Rodriguez recalled, some heavy machinery had just smashed into his ankle, and he had no idea how he would get to the hospital.

The Sam's Club, a Wal-Mart subsidiary, had locked its overnight workers in, as it always did, to keep robbers out and, as some managers say, to prevent employee theft. As usual, there was no manager with a key to let Mr. Rodriguez out. The fire exit, he said, was hardly an option -- management had drummed into the overnight workers that if they ever used that exit for anything but a fire, they would lose their jobs.

''My ankle was crushed,'' Mr. Rodriguez said, explaining he had been struck by an electronic cart driven by an employee moving stacks of merchandise. ''I was yelling and running around like a hurt dog that had been hit by a car. Another worker made some phone calls to reach a manager, and it took an hour for someone to get there and unlock the door.''

The reason for Mr. Rodriguez's delayed trip to the hospital was a little-known Wal-Mart policy: the lock-in. For more than 15 years, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, has locked in overnight employees at some of its Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores. It is a policy that many employees say has created disconcerting situations, such as when a worker in...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.salon.com


Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings
Breaking: Wal-Mart workers on strike, defying firings
Dozens of workers at a Florida Wal-Mart walked off the job this morning, mounting the first Wal-Mart store work stoppage since the firings of 20 workers who participated in an extended June strike.
“I don’t have fear,” striker Jose Bello told Salon in Spanish. “I don’t have any fear. They could punish us – we’re used to that.” Bello said that at least 80 of the employees at his Hialeah, Fla., store had joined the strike, which began at 9 a.m. Wal-Mart did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
“I decided a long time ago to do this, but we needed to come together as a group to make the decision,” said Bello. He described the strike as a response to “abuse and discrimination” by managers, as well as insufficient hours. “I have four years here,” he said, and “they’re give me 29 hours … as a human being, I want 40 hours.” Bello told Salon that workers met Thursday and decided to strike.
As Salon first reported, workers last fall mounted the first ever coordinated U.S. Wal-Mart strikes, including a high-profile “Black Friday” walkout the day after Thanksgiving. The group behind those strikes was OUR Walmart, a non-union labor group closely tied to the United Food &...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Wal-Mart must pay $188 million in workers' class action

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.reuters.com

(Reuters) - The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered Wal-Mart Stores Inc to pay $188 million to employees who had sued the retailer for failing to compensate them for rest breaks and all hours worked.
Wal-Mart said on Tuesday that it might appeal the decision, which upheld lower court rulings, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Monday's ruling on the class-action lawsuit will reduce Wal-Mart's earnings for the quarter ending on Jan. 31 by 6 cents a share, the company said in a securities filing. That amounts to roughly 4 percent of its profit forecast of $1.46 to $1.56 for the period.
Wal-Mart shares were up 0.5 percent at $84.39 in midday New York Stock Exchange trading.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a 2007 lower court ruling in favor of the workers, who said Wal-Mart failed to pay them for all hours worked and prevented them from taking full meal and rest breaks.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said the company did not believe the claims should be grouped together in a class-action suit. "Walmart has had strong policies in place to make sure all associates receive their appropriate pay and break periods," she said.
The decision, which affects about 187,000 Wal-Mart employees who worked in Pennsylvania between 1998 and 2006, marks the second unfavorable ruling in a week for the retailer, the largest private employer in the United States.
On Dec. 9, a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge found Wal-Mart had threatened employees trying to organize...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Read more about Walmart and workers' compensation
Nov 30, 2014
While millions of shoppers flocked to Walmart stores nationwide on Black Friday, thousands of protesters descended on Walmarts to protest what they said were the retailer's low wages. About 300 people rallied Friday ...
Nov 25, 2014
Wal-Mart workers and their supporters plan to launch protests at stores across the country on Black Friday to push for higher wages and better working conditions for employees.Organizers say rallies and marches will occur at ...
Nov 17, 2014
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A group of Walmart employees pushing for higher wages said on Friday they were planning protests at 1,600 Walmart stores nationwide on Black Friday, the biggest shopping day of the year in the ...
Oct 20, 2014
Labor activists have long denounced retailers like Walmart for employing an army of low-wage, part-time workers to staff their stores. As retail sales flounder in an uncertain economy, those activists — and even a growing ...

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

US Department of Labor recovers $4.83 million in back wages, damages for more than 4,500 Wal-Mart workers



Misapplied exemption resulted in pay violations; nearly $464,000 assessed in penalties


Wal-Mart Stores Inc., headquartered in Bentonville, Ark., has agreed to pay $4,828,442 in back wages and damages to more than 4,500 employees nationwide following an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division that found violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions. Additionally, Wal-Mart will pay $463,815 in civil money penalties.


The violations affected current and former vision center managers and asset protection coordinators at Wal-Mart Discount Stores, Wal-Mart Supercenters, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club warehouses. Wal-Mart failed to compensate these employees with overtime pay, considering them to be exempt from the FLSA's overtime requirements. The Labor Department's investigation found that the employees are nonexempt and consequently due overtime pay for any hours worked beyond 40 in a week.


"Misclassification of employees as exempt from FLSA coverage is a costly problem with adverse consequences for employees and corporations," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Let this be a signal to other companies that when violations are found, the Labor Department will take appropriate action to ensure that workers receive the wages they have earned."


Under the terms of the settlement, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay all back wages the department determined are owed for the violations plus an equal amount in liquidated damages to the employees. The FLSA provides that employers who violate the law are, as a general rule, liable to employees for back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages. The civil money penalties assessed stem from the repeat nature of the violations. Wal-Mart, which operates more than 3,900 establishments in the United States, corrected its classification practices for these workers in 2007, and negotiation over the back pay issues has been ongoing since that time. A third-party administrator will disburse the payments to the affected employees.


"Our department has been working with Wal-Mart for a long time to reach this agreement," said Nancy J. Leppink, deputy administrator of the Wage and Hour Division. "I am very pleased that staff in our Southwest region persevered, ensured these employees will be paid the back wages they are owed and brought this case to conclusion. Thanks to this resolution, thousands of employees will see money put back into their pockets that should have been there all along. The damages and penalties assessed in this case should put other employers on notice that they cannot avoid their obligations to their employees by inappropriately classifying their workers as exempt."


The FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay requirements for individuals employed in bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales positions, as well as certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees generally must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week. Job titles do not determine exempt status. In order for an exemption to apply, an employee's specific job duties and salary must meet all the requirements of the department's regulations.


The FLSA requires that covered, nonexempt employees be paid at least the federal minimum wage of $7.25 for all hours worked, plus time and one-half their regular rates, including commissions, bonuses and incentive pay, for hours worked beyond 40 per week. Employers also are required to maintain accurate time and payroll records.
Related articles

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Wal-Mart workers plan Black Friday protests for higher pay

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.latimes.com


Wal-Mart protest
Wal-Mart protest

Wal-Mart workers and their supporters plan to launch protests at stores across the country on Black Friday to push for higher wages and better working conditions for employees.Organizers say rallies and marches will occur at 1,600 Wal-Mart locations on the day after Thanksgiving in what they say will be the largest protests ever against the nation's biggest retailer.

Backing the demonstrations is Our Wal-Mart, the union-supported group of employees that has been pushing for a living wage of $15 an hour and more full-time positions. A protest earlier this month at a Wal-Mart in Pico Rivera ended with the arrest of 23 people for unlawful assembly and failure to disperse.
Martha Sellers, a cashier at the Wal-Mart store in Paramount,  said her low salary forces her to rely on ramen noodles and sometimes peanut butter to survive.
"The truth is it's not easy to talk about hunger and being hungry," Sellers said during a media call on Friday. She said she wants $15 an hour so she can buy groceries that are healthy.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Brooke Buchanan said many of the protesters participating in the Black Friday demonstrations are being paid to show up by unions.
"We have seen this story before about the protesters and unions threatening to protest in a large amount of stores," she said. "What it turns out to be is a handful of stores with a handful of associates."
Large...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Injured Workers Assert Class Action Claiming Wal-Mart Violated RICO Act

Several injured Wal-Mart workers' have claimed that the company, in defending their workers' compensation claims, violated the Federal RICO Act. The employees of Wal-Mart have alleged that the company conspired with the insurance carrier and claims adjuster to "dictate, withhold, delay, deny and/or interfere with" the type and duration of their medical care.

The employees have filed a motion for class action certification in their Federal RICO claim against: Wal-Mart, Concentra Health Services, Claims Management, Inc. and Home Assurance Co. (the workers' compensation insurance carrier). The complaint alleges the defendants' activity violated the Colorado's Consumer Protection Act [Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 6-1-105(1)(b),(c),(e) and (u)], and that there were also violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act [18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961-1968.] The Class Action Complaint was filed on March 24, 2009. Gianzero v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , et al., US DCT (D. Colorado) No. 09-cv-00656 REB BNB.

Wal-Mart's workers' compensation has been critically reviewed in the Seattle Weekly. The publication indicates that the Washington Department of Labor and Industries, in an Order, indicated that, .... “Over the last seven years, Wal-Mart has “repeatedly and unreasonably” delayed giving injured workers the benefits they were owed under workers’ compensation laws, and, in some cases, Wal-Mart employees were not allowed to file workers’ comp claims at all.”

The expansion of RICO actions arising out of workers' compensation claims is an issue to be addressed by the US Supreme Court should two pending Petitions for Certiorari be granted in other pending matters. See the Workers' Compensation Blog for additional articles on this topic.


Sunday, February 8, 2015

Wal-Mart sued in Georgia over wrong prescription

Today's post is shared from Westlaw Journal Professional Liability.

A pharmacist at a Wal-Mart store in Georgia filled a man’s prescription for blood pressure medication incorrectly, causing him to develop kidney failure, according to a state court lawsuit.

Plaintiff Harold Williams, who also worked at Wal-Mart, says the company fired him while he was sick from the taking the wrong medication.

(

Williams says he went to a Wal-Mart pharmacy in Roswell, Ga., in January 2013 to get a prescription for 25 milligrams of hydralazine, a blood pressure medication.

The unidentified pharmacist who filled the prescription gave him 25-milligram tablets of hydrochlorothiazide, a diuretic used to treat fluid retention, the suit says.

(Click here to read the complaint on WestlawNext.)

Williams says that because of the error, he took doses of the wrong medication and later was diagnosed with acute renal failure and hospitalized.

He seeks to hold the pharmacist liable for negligence and malpractice. The suit also says Wal-Mart failed to properly hire, train, retain and supervise its pharmacist and other employees.

The complaint seeks compensatory damages from the defendants for past and future medical bills, past and future lost income, and past and future pain and suffering. It also requests punitive damages solely against Wal-Mart for allegedly firing Williams.

Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. et al., No. 15-EV-000040, complaint filed (Ga. State Ct.,...


[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, March 28, 2011

Colorado Court Allows RICO Case to Proceed Against Wal-Mart

A partial summary judgment motion was denied by Judge Robert E. Blackburn in a pending Colorado case against Wal-Mart where the plaintiff alleged that the employer,  working in concert with other defendants "dictated and interfered unlawfully " with employees who were entitle to medical treatment flowing from occupational accidents. 

The Court stated that, "The plaintiffs allege that the defendants improperly required, and continue to require, treatment providers to follow protocol notes that improperly direct and/or restrict the medical treatment provided to injured Wal-Mart workers under the Act. The plaintiffs allege that the policies implemented by the defendants result in delays in the injured workers' receipt of treatment, denial of prescribed medical treatment, withholding of benefits, and/or the inability of the injured workers to obtain prescribed medical treatment."

The case involves a certified class of plaintiffs. The defendants had sought to limit the number of claimants by shortening the statute of limitations for the viability of the claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1968. Since the relevant time periods were not evident on the face of the complaint, and the defendants did not offer proof to establish it, the Court denied the motion.

Gianzero v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2011 WL 1085647 (D. Colo. 2011) Decided March 24, 2011.


Thursday, August 8, 2013

Wal-Mart signs corporate-wide settlement with US Labor Department

Today's post was shared by US Dept. of Labor and comes from www.dol.gov

Wal-Mart signs corporate-wide settlement with US Labor Department

Agreement resolves OSHA citations at Rochester, N.Y., store following 2011 inspections

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., has entered into a corporate-wide settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Labor to improve safety and health conditions in all 2,857 Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club stores under federal jurisdiction.  The settlement, which resolves two enforcement cases that began in 2011, includes provisions for the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer to enhance safety and health practices and training related to trash compactors, cleaning chemicals and hazard communications corporate-wide.

“This settlement will help to keep thousands of exposed Wal-Mart workers safe and healthy on the job,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Dr. David Michaels. “We hope this sends a strong message that the law requires employers to provide safe working conditions, and OSHA will use all the tools at our disposal to ensure that all employers follow the law.”

Under the settlement, trash compactors must remain locked while not in use, and may not be operated except under the supervision of a trained manager or other trained, designated monitor.  Wal-Mart will also improve its hazard communications training; and, for...

[Click here to see the rest of this article]

Sunday, October 20, 2013

Wal-Mart worker: Fired for helping assaulted woman

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.miamiherald.com

HARTLAND TOWNSHIP, Mich. -- A Michigan man says he was fired from his job at Wal-Mart after he tried to help a woman being assaulted in the parking lot of one of the retail giant's stores and ended up fighting with her attacker.
Kristopher Oswald told WXYZ-TV in Detroit (http://bit.ly/18qGyBh ) that Wal-Mart has policies against workplace violence to prevent employees from assaulting co-workers or tackling a shoplifter, but that it appears that nothing allows for them to assist in situations of imminent danger and self-defense.
A spokeswoman for Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. told The Associated Press on Thursday that while the company understood Oswald's intentions, his actions violated company policy.
"We had to make a tough decision, one that we don't take lightly, and he's no longer with the company," company spokeswoman Ashley Hardie said.
Oswald, 30, said he was in his car on his break about 2:30 a.m. Sunday when he saw a man grabbing a woman. He said he asked her if she needed help and the man started punching him in the head and yelling that he was going to kill him. Oswald said he was able to get on top of the man, but then two other men jumped him from behind.
Livingston County sheriff's deputies arrived and halted the fight.
Oswald said the Hartland Township store's management gave him paperwork saying that "after a violation of company policy on his lunch break, it was determined to end his temporary assignment." Oswald had worked for Wal-Mart for...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

OSHA cites Wal-Mart Super Center for repeat and serious safety hazards - proposes $52,600 in fines


The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has cited Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for alleged repeat and serious violations of workplace safety standards at the Wal-Mart Super Center store located at 139 Merchant Place in Cobleskill. The retailer faces a total of $52,600 in proposed fines following inspections by OSHA's Albany Area Office.


OSHA found that emergency exit access from a receiving and storage area was obstructed by the storage of pallets containing merchandise and equipment, and employees were not able to safely operate pallet jacks in aisles and passageways that were obstructed by stacked merchandise. In addition, portable fire extinguishers were not mounted and located in safely accessible areas, and the lack of a protective fitting and strain relief for an electrical conduit entering a control box presented an electrical hazard.


These conditions resulted in the issuance of citations with $48,200 in proposed fines for three repeat violations. A repeat violation exists when an employer previously has been cited for the same or a similar violation of a standard, regulation, rule or order at any other facility in federal enforcement states within the last five years. In this case, OSHA had previously cited Wal-Mart for similar hazards at stores in Newington, Conn.; Chelmsford and West Boylston, Mass.; Centralia and Joliet, Ill.; Coshocton, Ohio; and Lewisville, Texas.


"The recurring nature of these hazards is disturbing and needs to be effectively addressed," said Kimberly Castillon, OSHA's area director in Albany. "An employer with multiple locations, such as Wal-Mart, needs to ensure that hazards are identified, corrected and prevented at all of its workplaces."


Additionally, a citation with a $4,400 fine has been issued for a serious violation involving a lack of eye, face and hand protection as well as safety training for employees operating cardboard balers. A serious violation occurs when there is substantial probability that death or serious physical harm could result from a hazard about which the employer knew or should have known.


"One step an employer can take to protect its workers against on-the-job hazards is to develop and maintain an effective illness and injury prevention program in which management and employees work together to proactively identify and prevent hazardous conditions," said Robert Kulick, OSHA's regional administrator in New York.


Arkansas-based Wal-Mart has 15 business days from receipt of its citations and proposed penalties to comply, meet with OSHA's area director or contest the findings before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission.


To ask questions, obtain compliance assistance, file a complaint, or report workplace hospitalizations, fatalities or situations posing imminent danger to workers, the public should call OSHA's toll-free hotline at 800-321-OSHA (6742) or the agency's Albany office at 518-464-4338.


Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA's role is to ensure these conditions for America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit http://www.osha.gov.

Friday, January 28, 2011

The RICO Consequences of Managing Health Care in Workers Compensation

It is one thing to provide workers' compensation coverage to injured employers and it is another issue how involved an employer can be in managing  medical care. That right was never addressed by the crafters of the workers' compensation system almost a century ago.

That dilemma is now being addressed by a Federal Judge in Colorado where a class action lawsuit pending against Wal-Mart for micro-managing and restricting medical care to injured workers.  Brooks Magratten, Esq, has addressed these issues in a recently authored article. "Class Action Attacks Wal-Mart Health Care Model." 25 No. 13 WJEMP 1 (Jan. 25, 2011). The landmark action has the potential to expand workers compensation medical care into the umbrella of a national universal medical care system.

The plaintiffs in the pending action, all former and present Wal-Mart employees, are seeking treble damages against the mega-corporation, with an aggregate market value of $108.8 Billion, for interfering with medical care. Judge Robert Blackburn has denied Wal-Mart's motion to dismiss, now setting the stage for a definitive test of the workers' compensation medical system nationally.

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Concentra Denied a Protective Order in Wal-Mart RICO Lawsuit

Concentra was denied a protective order in a pending Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1961, et seq. claim filed in Federal Court in Colorado. The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart withheld, delayed, denied and dictated treatment to Wal-Mart workers who filed workers' compensation claim.


In the case, Concentra, a health care company, sought to prohibit plaintiff's attorneys from contacting any Concentra Medical Staff member, former or current, on an ex-parte basis. The Court denied the request.

Gianzero v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 1740624 (D. Colo. 2011) Decided May 5, 2011.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Stay Lifted in RICO Class Action Against Wal-Mart

A Federal Judge has lifted a stay in a class-action law suit against Wal-Mart that charges the company with conspiring with workers' compensation insurance companies to limit medical treatment for injured workers. The stay was lifted by U.S. District Court Judge Robert Blackburn on July 1, 2010. 

The claim, on behalf of 7,000 Colorado Wal-Mart workers charges conspiracy with: Claims Management Inc., American Home Assurance Co. and Concentra Health Services Inc., to control medical treatment, who may have been entitled to treatment under the Colorado Workers Compensation Act. Other allegations of fraud are also asserted.

Gianzero et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores et al., No. 09-00656, stay lifted (D. Colo. July 1, 2010).

Click here for additional articles about Wal-Mart and workers' compensation. For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered asbestos related illnesses.




Saturday, September 14, 2013

How Wal-Mart keeps wages low

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.washingtonpost.com


“I think they don’t want me to actually let people know what’s really going on at Wal-Mart as an associate,” Lopez told me in an interview for the Nation following her June 21 firing. “So they’d rather get rid of me.”

Firings like Lopez’s may not come as a shock — Wal-Mart once shut down a store in Canada after workers there won collective bargaining rights, and it eliminated its entire U.S. meat-cutting department after a handful of meat-cutters at one store voted to unionize. But the alleged retaliation defies an eight-decade-old promise from the federal government to most U.S. workers:

Banding together to improve your workplace, whether you win or lose, shouldn’t cost you your job. That 1935 law — the National Labor Relations Act – is still on the books. But its ban on retaliation today reads more like a cruel joke than an ironclad commitment. A 2009 study released by the progressive Economic Policy Institute found that pro-union workers are fired — allegedly illegally — in at least a third of unionization election campaigns supervised by the government.

As expected, Wal-Mart denies illegally retaliating against anyone. The company claims that some of the discipline was unrelated to the protests — Lopez ostensibly lost her job for violating a food safety policy by bringing the employee handbook into the deli area where she works. And Wal-Mart says other workers were punished not for...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Accidents Caused by Fatiguing Employment Require a Remedy

Employees sometimes are directed to work long and stressful hours and then if they become injured they are left without a remedy.  A Court recently held that even though an employee who was killed as a result of fatigue related accident while driving home after working  22 hours straight on "Black Friday" for Wal-Mart was without a remedy.


The Court reasoned that the law barred any recovery. The Workers' Compensation Act is not an available remedy the Court held since the injured occurred off the premises of the employer and not under the employers control. Also a civil action was barred by the deceased's estate against Wal-Mart since the Court reasoned that, "...The imposition of a duty upon an employer for injuries sustained by an employee, arguably arising out of the fatiguing conditions of employment, yet occurring outside of the course of employment would alter the necessary balance struck by the New Jersey legislature when defining the scope of compensable injuries." 

Despite the changing economic times, the laws should keep pace with the growing momentum of making the workplace safer. Regressive employment practices are not the solution for a healthier workplace. It is more important than ever that the Legislature revisit working conditions and strike a balance to provide a regulatory response to injuries and accident caused by such adverse situations.

See: Aylward v Wal-Mart Stores Inc., CA No. 10-4799, 2011 WL 2357762 (D.N.J.) Decided June 9, 2011

For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Related articles

Friday, September 27, 2013

The Impact and Echoes of the Wal-Mart Discrimination Case

This article is shared from propublica.

The post is shared from probulica.org.

Betty Dukes talks to the press on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the class action lawsuit Dukes v. Wal-Mart was argued before the court in Washington, March 29, 2011
(Photo: Reuters)
When the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes in June 2011, no one needed a Richter scale to know it was a Big One. In throwing out a mammoth lawsuit by women employees who claimed that they’d been systematically underpaid and underpromoted by the world’s biggest corporation, the ruling upended decades of employment discrimination law and raised serious barriers to future large-scale discrimination cases of every kind.

Employers rejoiced. Others predicted serious setbacks for women and minorities, especially in employment discrimination cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That landmark law had opened the way to the use of the class-action lawsuit as a potent weapon for people who could not stand up for their rights on their own.
Two years later, it’s becoming clear just how much the ruling has reshaped the American legal landscape.

The Dukes decision has already been cited more than 1,200 times in rulings by federal and state courts, a figure seen by experts as remarkable. Jury verdicts have been overturned, settlements thrown out, and class actions rejected or decertified, in many instances undoing years of litigation. The rulings have come in every part of the country, in lawsuits involving all types of companies,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]