Betty Dukes, the respondent along with other women, has come up against Wal-Mart Stores, who is the petitioner in this case, with a Title 7 employment inequity case. The District Court of U.S.A California north qualified a course of action comprising of all women working at any of the stores belonging to Wal-Mart from the 26th December of 1998 who might have been of would be subjected to the purportedly biased policies and norms of Wal-Mart. The lawsuit purported that the women’s employer indulged in company-wide sexual biases by remunerating men more than women, thus promoting fewer women to prestigious management positions and enhancing male workers a bit fast. The case dubbed Wal-Mart v. Dukes as a course of action managed to reach the supreme court, which did hear verbal arguments on the 29th of March. The main question, therefore, that was before in the hands of the supreme court was if Betty Dukes together with her female counterparts at Wal-Mart could go ahead as a group to come forward with discriminatory sentiments against their employer Wal-Mart.
To me, the U.S Supreme Court was divided. Even though the high court never gave a ruling on the case advantages, the somewhat misinformed decision shelters women who worked at Wal-Mart from tackling America’s biggest private employer as a unified group across the nation forcing each woman to file her sentiments personally or instead in shrink, action groups (Fisk, 2009). The supreme court ignored more than forty years of reputable jurisprudence and relentlessly constrained the chances of the workers to brawl discrimination as a class action unit. More importantly, the court enormously conservative judgement gave a lot of focus to the sheer incidence of a corporate anti-discrimination framework, even though the framework seemed not to have been adhered to. The court’s decision seems to give a dark future indication to further workers class action cases and a promising future for employers to go ahead using highly partial remuneration and sex discrimination activities.
The company alleges that since the company is comprehensive, the process of making decisions by managers is also spread that it cannot be held liable. But then we know that I corporations where the surroundings are unfavourable to women are purposefully perpetuated in all areas from daunting women from making applications to departmental positions like hardware, sporting materials to attending meetings, the truth that store managers have the powers indicates their discrimination.
That would be important to me is not only the injustice that has been done to the numerous employers, but the spirit of Wal-Mart and the corporate forces behind their case in the Chamber of Commerce, the chances of women affected by these policies to come together as a unit and push ahead with a unified fight in court are limited. In case Wal-Mart emerges victorious in this case, it will clip the voices of women working in it that they would not be able to alter their remunerations or disparities in promotions, lawsuits that will also come after it regarding discrimination within areas of work, violations of trust, protection of consumers and civil rights will be severely affected, pushing away case brought up by big groups of persons against substantial corporate companies (Fisk, 2009).
Action classes, particularly those that bring together vast numbers of workers witnessing back remunerations, are a vital organ for holding corporations answerable for widespread discriminations, mainly when the damage caused to a single person, like Betty, the picture of discrimination is important compared with the larger one. Most companies want individual fights like that of David and Goliath to be fought for people. From such fights, broad patterns of companies injustices would remain under the carpet because discoveries by legal teams would be minimal and corporate-wide statistical proof might be inadmissible in court. Even if the company lost many cases dealing with individual subjects, solutions would be primarily negligible. Adding to this, the Supreme Court understands from previous cases that the legal profession would be hesitant from pursuing such legal undertakings because possible benefits are minimal and also the expenses of prosecuting against huge companies are high. Owing to these reasons, class actions are vital tools to Americans and the world at large in pursuing justice. The ruling indeed was against the Civil Rights Act of the year 1964 it was unfair to not only the women who were working at Wal-Mart but also for all the men and minority groups across the nation. It would affect many cases that would follow.
The supreme court decision undermined the rights of women and class actions. For class actions to function as organs for pursuing justice and preventing company misbehaviour, the defendant must have been compelled to honour the financial consequences intrinsic in compensating the real figure of the persons affected, irrespective of number.
- Fisk, K. G. (2009). Wal-Mart Wins Request in Bias Case Washington Post.