The Impact of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Case on Retail Employers (Essay Sample)

The Impact of the Wal-Mart v. Dukes Case on Retail Employers
Name:
Institution:
Date:
Table of Contents
 TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877260"
Abstract  PAGEREF _Toc395877260 \h
3
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877261"
The Impact of the Wal-Mart V. Dukes Case on Retail Employers  PAGEREF _Toc395877261 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877262"
Summary of the Case  PAGEREF _Toc395877262 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877263"
Synopsis of Rule of Law  PAGEREF _Toc395877263 \h
4
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877264"
The Facts of the Case  PAGEREF _Toc395877264 \h
5
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877265"
Issue  PAGEREF _Toc395877265 \h
5
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877266"
The Impact of the Wal-Mart V. Dukes Case on Retail Employers  PAGEREF _Toc395877266 \h
6
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877267"
Increased Determination to Avoid Discrimination Lawsuits  PAGEREF _Toc395877267 \h
7
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877268"
Having a clear Understanding of the Laws  PAGEREF _Toc395877268 \h
7
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877269"
Changing the Strategies of Institute Policies  PAGEREF _Toc395877269 \h
8
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877270"
Initiating Training Programs for Supervisors and Managers  PAGEREF _Toc395877270 \h
9
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877271"
Involvement of Employees in Key Decision Making  PAGEREF _Toc395877271 \h
10
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877272"
Developing the Behaviour of Document everything  PAGEREF _Toc395877272 \h
11
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877273"
Enforcing Zero-Tolerance Discrimination Policies  PAGEREF _Toc395877273 \h
12
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877274"
Embracing Communication  PAGEREF _Toc395877274 \h
12
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877275"
Taking Complaints Seriously  PAGEREF _Toc395877275 \h
13
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877276"
Conclusion  PAGEREF _Toc395877276 \h
14
 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc395877277"
References  PAGEREF _Toc395877277 \h
16


Abstract
This paper seeks to examine the impact of the Wal-Mart V. Dukes case on retail employers. Wal-Mart V. Dukes was a case in the U.S court. In this case, Dukes, an employee working for Wal-Mart, and others complained of gender bias in pay and promotion practices and guidelines in Wal-Mart stores. Dukes together with other five female employees in the company, filed a class-action maintaining that their civil rights have been dishonoured by the company. The claim was that the company’s guidelines resulted in countrywide prejudice against female workers in their employment. According to the complainant, the bias was evident through lower pay for women compared to men in the similar type of job and level of employment. Additionally, discrimination involved longer time taken by women employees before they were promoted contrary to the duration taken by men employees. The case of Wal-Mart V. Dukes has numerous impacts on retail employers. These impacts include the following. Increased determination to avoid discrimination lawsuits, having a clear understanding of the laws, changing the strategies of institute policies, initiating training programs for supervisors and managers, involvement of employees in key decision making, developing the behaviour of document everything, enforcing zero-tolerance discrimination policies, embracing communication, and taking employees’ complaints seriously.
The Impact of the Wal-Mart V. Dukes Case on Retail Employers
Summary of the Case
Wal-Mart V. Dukes was a case in the U.S court. The court case was an appeal meant to overturn the Ninth Circuit's court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes where that court, in the end, by a narrow 5-4 decision, overturned the decision by district court to declare class action proceedings in which the petitioner class involved 1.6 million women who by then were working or had been employed in Wal-Mart stores, counting lead petitioner Betty Dukes (Winship, 2011). Dukes, an employee working for Wal-Mart and others complained of gender bias in pay and promotion practices and guidelines in Wal-Mart stores. Thus, this case involved a small group of female workers who were complaining of inequity on gender basis (Feldman & Fleischman, 2007). These workers filed a suit against the company. The action was required to be altered to a class action, whereby the authorized class had been represented in the original small group of female workers who prosecuted Wal-Mart Stores, Inc (Goldstein, 2013).
 INCLUDEPICTURE "/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/walmart2.jpg" \* MERGEFORMATINET 

Figure 1: Photograph of Wal-Mart stores. Source: (Mario, 2011)
Synopsis of Rule of Law
The Federal laws 23(a) (2) specify a “commonality” principle for class qualifications, under which over one million women working under the same employer will have to demonstrate that they were all subject to the identical biased employment guidelines, to be approved as a class (Winship, 2011). Additionally, the Federal laws of Civil Procedure 23 (b) (2) cannot be employed to verify a claim for financial relief except if this is subsidiary to the injunctive or declaratory relief sought (Goldstein, 2013).
The Facts of the Case
Betty Dukes, the complainant in the case, was a female low-level employee working in Wal-Mart stores at Pittsburgh, California (Feldman & Fleischman, 2007). Dukes, together with five other female employees in the company, filed a class-action claiming that their civil rights had been violated by the company. The claim was that the company’s guidelines resulted in countrywide prejudice against female workers in their employment. According to the complainant, the bias was evident through lower pay for women compared to men in similar types of jobs and level of employment, and the longer time taken by female employees before they were promoted contrary to the duration taken by male employees (Norman, 2004). The class qualifications were made by the U.S. District Court in the northern region of California (Adams, 2013). It was declared that the plaintiffs satisfied the legal condition of Rule 23 (a) (2) and 23 (b) (2) (Norman, 2004). The class had over 1.5 million female workers, with all being women working for Wal-Mart later than December 26, 1998 (Winship, 2011). Wal-Mart, the defendant in the case, maintained that the court should involve individual lawsuits from the company workers since the range of the class made it impractical to deal with and raised the costs unreasonably (Goldstein, 2013). In the end, the United States Court of Appeal supported the class qualifications three times (Adams, 2013).
Type of Crime in Wal-Mart V. Dukes Case
The type of crime committed in Wal-Mart V. Dukes case is corporate crime. This is because; the corporation, Wal-Mart is involved in the discrimination of some workers, female workers. The management of Wal-Mart store treated employees differently in order to gain financial advantage (Featherstone, 2004). By paying female workers reduced payment compared to male workers, the store wanted to reduce recurrent expenditures. Similar, the company took exceedingly longer time to promote female workers, compared to time take in promoting male worker, in order to reduce operation costs (Goldstein, 2013). This is a criminal act since the company wanted to realize financial benefit in expense of some worker. The typology of the crime is white collar crime since it involves unlawful activities of an institution whose accepted purpose is profit through legal business undertakings (Featherstone, 2004). In the case of this case, Wal-Mart is involved in illegal activity in order to increase its profit margin.
Legal Process Used To Prosecute
In Wal-Mart V. Dukes case, Federal laws were employed to prosecute the crime. In this case, The Federal laws 23(a) (2) and Federal laws of Civil Procedure 23 (b) (2) were employed to prosecute the crime. The Federal laws 23(a) (2) specify a “commonality” principle for class qualifications, under which over one million women working under the same employer will have to demonstrate that they were all subject to the identical biased employment guidelines, to be approved as a class (Winship, 2011). Additionally, the Federal laws of Civil Procedure 23 (b) (2) cannot be employed to verify a claim for financial relief except if this is subsidiary to the injunctive or declaratory relief sought (Goldstein, 2013). The defence raised by the defendant in the case, Wal-Mart stores, is that the court should involve individual lawsuits from the company workers since the range of the class made it impractical to deal with and raised the costs unreasonably (Goldstein, 2013). The defence did not have merit since the court declared that the plaintiffs fulfilled the legal condition of Rule 23 (a) (2) and 23 (b) (2) (Norman, 2004). The class had more than 1.5 million female employees, with all being women working for Wal-Mart later than December 26, 1998.
Regulations Subsequently Implemented To Avoid Future Crimes
After the Wal-Mart V. Dukes Case various countries have created different laws that aim at protecting people or groups of people against any acts of discrimination, particularly at the place of work. Among the regulations implemented to avoid future crimes of this nature include Law Against Discrimination (LAD), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). LAD was signed into law this year in order to help in eliminating cases of discrimination at the place of work (Born, 2011). FMLA was signed into law in the year 2008. The Act has helped in eliminating discrimination of pregnant women at the place of work, or during employment processes (Goldstein, 2013). Additionally, after Wal-Mart V. Dukes case, GINA was signed into law in the year 2...