abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb
Article

27 Oct 2011

Author:
Margaret Cronin Fisk, Karen Gullo, Bloomberg

Wal-Mart Workers Limit Gender Bias Suit to California Stores [USA]

Women who originally sued Wal-Mart Stores...for sex discrimination on behalf of 1 million female co-workers across the U.S. amended their suit to cover bias claims of only workers in California. The more limited filing...followed a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that barred the original suit as a national class action, or group case, because the plaintiffs failed to prove the world’s largest retailer had a nationwide policy that led to gender discrimination. The new complaint alleges Wal-Mart blocked women in California from promotions and paid them less than men for comparable work. A California store manager suggested to one plaintiff that she “doll up” to become more promotable...according to the complaint...The claims in the new complaint “aren’t representative of the thousands of women that work at Wal-Mart,” said Greg Rossiter, a Wal-Mart spokesman. “These claims are unsuitable for class treatment because the situations of each individual are so different,” said Rossiter...“Wal-Mart is not the company the plaintiffs say it is. Not now. Not then.” [also refers to Sam's Club]

Timeline