The world's biggest retailer hopes to derail history's biggest private civil-rights case next week by arguing before a federal appellate panel that a massive gender-discrimination suit against Wal-Mart is too big.
The suit accuses Wal-Mart of systematically favoring men over women in pay and promotion. An appeals court ruling that backs turning the case into a class action affecting as many as 1.5 million women not only would put billions of dollars at stake but also would set up a battle that both sides say would mean a lot for other employers and employees.
"It's a nightmare for business," said Robin Cook, legal director for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Wal-Mart lawsuit -- An article in Monday's Business section about a gender-bias class action against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. incorrectly identified Robin S. Conrad, a lawyer representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as Robin Cook.
In a brief filed to support Wal-Mart's appeal of the class certification, the chamber argued that allowing cases that large would create an avalanche of suits against U.S. businesses that would be so hard to defend against that many companies would be encouraged to settle regardless of the facts.
Advocates for workers, however, say the case must remain a class action because the courthouse is often the only place where low-wage, nonunion employees can stand up to corporate giants like Wal-Mart.
A victory for the plaintiffs would "send a message to employers that illegal discrimination won't be tolerated no matter how big the corporation," said Linda Meric, executive director of an advocacy group called 9to5, National Assn. of Working Women.
Filed by six female employees in June 2001, the suit accused the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer of violating Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by systematically paying its female employees less than men in comparable positions and discriminating against them in giving promotions and job assignments. The suit seeks back pay and lost wages, punitive damages and changes in Wal-Mart's pay and promotion practices.
The plaintiffs say they have examined Wal-Mart payroll data that show that the retailer paid women, on average, 5% less than less-qualified men in comparable positions.
Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark, however, said the company did not discriminate. Any pay disparities are limited to isolated areas, she said.
"At over 90% of our stores there is no statistically significant difference in the pay regarding men and women," Clark said.
The case gained steam in June 2004, when U.S. District Judge Martin Jenkins in San Francisco certified it as a class action -- including every female employee at any of the company's 3,600 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club stores in the United States since 1998, from cashiers to managers.
