Employee Discrimination in Wal-Mart

Name

Course

Tutor’s Name

Date

Introduction

Employee discrimination is an issue affecting various workers worldwide resulting into emotional and physical torture to the victims. In Wal-Mart, there have been quite a number of cases of employee discrimination especially concerning gender biasness amongst its many workers. Sex discrimination particularly in Dukes vs. Wal-Mart case was just among the many cases that evidently showed one of the biggest class action bias suits on record that raised eyebrows from the legal experts (Shapiro 2012).

Wal-Mart believes that women do not have adequate abilities as compared to men. It is assumed that male is a superior gender who has sufficient qualification to hold higher positions in the Wal-Mart’s structural system. The company has discriminatory way of wage determination and promotions that only favor men. Although, Wal-Mart gender matters are very sensitive even in the place of work particularly how the employees themselves discuss it, the management has not successfully addressed the issues (Shapiro 2012).

There has been an increased incidence of filling suits against the company, which many legal experts think that may not be successful just like the Supreme Court’s ruling in Betty Duke’s case. Nevertheless, the company has always denied any mistake by asserting that their corporate policy prohibits inequity and guarantees fairness even when their counsel termed women as people lacking enough in common to call themselves a class in duke’s case. the male managers are the beneficiaries of gender discrimination in the company have also promoted this act in various incidences such as in 2001 when a male manager told a female employee to drop her law suit if she wanted to advance in the company (Shapiro 2012).

Another incidence that validates the gender bigotry in Walmart is the case of Pamela Collins who despite having over 18 years retail experience accompanied with excellent performance, has been neglected for numerous promotions in favor of her male counterparts who did not even have enough experience as she does. The management in some stores argue that the female assistant are enough and therefore no more absorption can be done in those positions even without justifying what is enough. Pamela has made several failing attempts to her bosses requesting for promotions. There are general denial of promotions and common enumeration to all female employees more so in Texas where an employee went to ask her district manager why her male counterpart was earning more than she did but the manager responded that it was common and usual for men to earn more (Shapiro 2012). In a different occasion in Houston and Abilene stores, the management claimed that men have many responsibilities such as supporting their families and that, the female employees should just be contented with their earnings.

The company surprisingly, is still working on ways to dismiss gender favoritism cases on the grounds that there are indeed class differences. In fact due to the complexity of the class action discrimination cases and its interpretation in the supreme court, some law experts suggests that it can only succeed if it is filed on a much smaller scale by an individual. However, due to the cost of individual suit and inability to prove evidence, class action is undoubtedly the best way of winning a case against corporate muscle (Shapiro 2012). In deed the employee discrimination is real in Wal-Mart Company but the class action issue greatly undermines the case in the Supreme Court. The company should improve on its employment policies to equally favor every employee regardless of their sexes.

Reference

Shapiro, Lila. (2012). Wal-Mart Faces Long Battle on Sex Discrimination, Despite Supreme Court Ruling. Huff post Business. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/24/walmart-sex-discrimination-supreme-court_n_1227352.html