Ms. magazine  -- more than a magazine a movement

SIGN UP FOR MS. DIGEST, JOBS, NEWS AND ALERTS

FEMINIST WIRE NEWSBRIEFS

ABOUT
SEE CURRENT ISSUE
SHOP MS. STORE
MS. IN THE CLASSROOM
FEMINIST DAILY WIRE
FEMINIST RESOURCES
PRESS
JOBS AT MS.
READ BACK ISSUES
CONTACT
RSS (XML)
 
feminist wire | daily newsbriefs

September-25-12

Federal Court Will Hear Walmart Sex Discrimination Case

A federal judge has agreed to hear arguments in a sex discrimination case brought by women employees of Walmart in California. The case, Dukes vs Walmart, is a class-action suit that alleges that female employees in California did not receive the same pay or promotion rates as their male counterparts in Walmart stores throughout the state.

In June 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a national class-action lawsuit of the same name which included over 1.5 million women. In a 5-4 decision, the court ruled that the suit was too varied in its allegations, showing no concrete pattern of gender bias, effectively making Walmart "too big to sue." Since then, separate complaints have been filed in every state except Montana and Vermont.

"We have maintained all along that the Supreme Court's decision did not preclude us from seeking justice for the women of Walmart through class actions consistent with its new guidelines and standards, nor did the Court rule on the merits of the case," said Brad Seligman, the lead counsel representing the women. "This decision vindicates our argument."

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer denied Walmart's request to dismiss the case on the grounds that the current selection of women is still too large. Breyer has set a date for February 15th, 2013, to determine if the group of almost 100,000 women can sue as a group.

Media Resources: Bloomberg 9/22/12; Feminist Newswire 6/7/12; 10/28/2011


© Feminist Majority Foundation, publisher of Ms. magazine

If you liked this story, consider making a tax-deductible donation to support Ms. magazine.

 

 

Send to a Friend
Their
Your
Comments
(optional)


More Feminist News

10/31/2014 Federal Judge Exempts Another Catholic University from Birth Control Coverage - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Ave Maria University, a Catholic university in Florida, does not have to comply with federal rules meant to ensure that covered employees can exercise their right to obtain birth control at no cost. The Affordable Care Act requires all new health insurance plans to cover all FDA-approved contraceptives - such as the pill, emergency contraceptives, and IUDs - without charging co-pays, deductibles or co-insurance. . . .
 
10/31/2014 Women of Color in Tennessee Are United in Opposition to Amendment 1 - Just days before the general election in Tennessee, a coalition of community leaders, clergy, and advocates led a press conference encouraging women of color to vote no on Amendment 1, a dangerous and far-reaching measure on the state's ballot. SisterReach, a grassroots organization focused on "empowering, organizing, and mobilizing women and girls in the community around their reproductive and sexual health to make informed decisions about themselves," organized the press conference "to call attention to the unique concerns Black and poor communities throughout Shelby County and across the state of Tennessee face on a daily basis" and to emphasize how the upcoming election "could further limit [black women's] reproductive, economic, political, and social autonomy." "We assemble today to impress upon black women and women of color, many of whom are heads of households, to get out and vote," said SisterReacher Founder and CEO Cherisse Scott at the event. SisterReach has been educating voters about the particularly dangerous impact of Amendment 1 on women of color. . . .
 
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1. The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .