Court says Wal-Mart must face bias trial

The ongoing class-action suit against WalMart, brought by women claiming they did not receive the same pay raises and priomotions as their male counterparts, is back in the news.

WalMart would really realy like for this to not be a class action suit. In a class action suit, the plaintiffs comprise all possible individuals who belong to the class -- in this case, any woman who has worked for Walmart since December 26, 1998. Class action settlements tend to be quite expensive for losing defendants; the news story is using the term "billions".

WalMart can affort the expensive lawyers, who are attempting to demolish the whole concept of class action lawsuits. however the plaintiffs appear to be in this for the long haul.

The suit is entering into its fourth year, but don't be looking for a resolution any time soon. All that's been settled here is the class action certificantion. The testimony, expert witnesses, etc. are way off in the future.

A lot of employment discriminations suits are settled out of court. But, I really don't think WalMart is likely to settle, since any settlement is going to involve some admission of guilt, as well as a financial settlement. My best guess is that we won't see any resolution for 4 to 5 years, and longer wouldn't surprise me out of a year's growth.

Do I have an opinion? Glad you asked.....of course I do. This is a classic "adverse impact" suit, meaning that discrimination is established by statistical evidence establishing that outcomes are significantly different form men and women (the dreaded "4/5 rule"). Once that's done, Walmart has to prove that their promotion and pay practices are business-related (validity). I haven't seen any of the evidence, but, first, I suspect that there'll be a lot of statistical byplay on the 4/5 rule. Also, it isn't a matter of "guilty" or "not guilty" here. I'd guess that the plaintiffs can establish that there is discrimination going on. What the plaintiffs are going to need, though, is to find something in writing (internal memos, etc.) that establishes that the discrimination is intentional. That's, strictly speaking, not necessary for this type of suit, but it would sure help.

Stay tuned for more developments.

Court says Wal-Mart must face bias trial I'll add a more permanent link later on

Employment Discrimination in Sweden

This was on Yahoo's front page, so I thought it might be a good idea for me to note a few things. First, this case is in Sweden. As the International Business folks have gotten very tired of hearing, culture and laws differ. True, there have been employment discrimination cases in the US where height requirements and other physical requirements have been struck down (as I recall, some were on gender and others I think on ethnicity). However, in the US cases, the finding was that the requirement wasn't something actually needed for the job [Note 1]. From what was reported here, it sound as though the minimum height requirement was a job requirement -- if a US employer could establish that efficiency or safety really did require the minimum heights, the employer would, I think, probably win the suit.

[Note 1]. The interesting case was with firefighters. Traditional selection requirements for that job included the ability to lift, I think, 250 or 300 pounds. When this requirement was challenged, and a job analysis actually performed, what came out was that the ability to lift that amount of weight wasn't essential; what was essential was the ability to carry a lesser amount over a distance. In other words, endurance rather than strength. Women actually do better on endurence than men. That doesn't mean that many women will qualify as firefighters -- it's not office work. But, if you think through it, doesn't it make sense to take the time to find out what the job really requires, and find people who meet those qualifications?