Corporations Sued
for Racial or
Gender Discrimination
This
website presents a list and summary of recent allegations of racial
discrimination charged in lawsuits against major corporations operating
in the United States.The status of each case is reported as of June
2004. The status of
any individual lawsuit may change. Readers are encouraged to
investigate any of these cases independently for further information
and updated status.
FAIR
USE NOTICE
This website
may contain
copyrighted material the use of which has not specifically been
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material
available in an effort to advance the understanding of educational,
political, human
rights, economic, democratic, scientific,and social justice issues.
This constitutes a"fair use" of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for nonprofit educational and research purposes.
For more information on fair use, please go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own which go beyond "fair
use," we suggest that you obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
Abercrombie &
Fitch
On June 16,
2003, a coalition of organizations, including the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund ("MALDEF"), the Asian
Pacific American Legal Center ("APALC") and the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc., filed an employment discrimination class action
lawsuit against Abercrombie & Fitch Company. The plaintiffs
allege that Abercrombie discriminates against people of color,
including Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans, in the
hiring, job assignment, compensation, termination and other terms and
conditions of employment.
Specific Allegations:
- Abercrombie
recruits, hires, and maintains a disproportionately white workforce of
salespeople (called Brand Representatives).
- Abercrombie
systematically discourages applications from minority applicants and
refuses to hire qualified minority applicants as Brand Representatives
to work on the floors.
- Abercrombie
implements its employment policies and practices in part through a
detailed and rigorous “Appearance Policy,” which requires that all
Brand Representatives must exhibit the “A&F Look”, a
virtually all-white image.
- Abercrombie
uses visual media to reinforce to managers responsible for recruitment,
assignment, compensation and termination of Brand Representatives the
importance of adhering to the "A&F Look" in employment decisions
via:
- prominent
displays in each store of large photographs of models – almost all
of whom are white;
- the A&F
Quarterly, a magazine/catalog featuring almost exclusively white models;
- careful
scrutiny and monitoring of its stores by regional and district managers
and corporate representatives, who have directed
that
minority Brand Representatives be fired, moved to the stock room or
overnight shift, or have their hours “zeroed out,” the equivalent of
termination;
- the scrutiny and
enforced compliance with the “A&F Look” by requiring all stores to
submit a picture of their Brand Representatives. Corporate officials
then select roughly 15 stores’ pictures as exemplary models and
distribute these photos to all stores nationwide. The Brand
Representatives in these pictures are almost invariably white.
November 17, 2004 Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE, New York Times
(Excerpt)
Abercrombie & Fitch settled race and sex
discrimination lawsuits yesterday, agreeing to alter its well-known
collegiate, all-American - and largely white - image by adding more
blacks,
Hispanics and Asians to its marketing materials.
After a federal judge in San Francisco approved the class-action
settlement yesterday, the two sides announced an agreement that calls
for Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $40 million to several thousand
minority and female plaintiffs. Abercrombie also agreed to hire 25
diversity recruiters and a vice
president for diversity and to pursue benchmarks so that its hiring and
promotion of minorities and women reflect its applicant pool.
Specific Remedies:
Among the remedies that Ambercrombie and Fitch agreed to implement were:
- payment of $40 million to several thousand minority and female plaintiffs;
- payment of an additional $7.2 million in lawyers' fees;
- hiring 25 diversity recruiters and a vice president for diversity;
- pursuit of benchmarks in hiring and
promotion of minorities and women to reflect its applicant pool;
- to increase diversity to its marketing materials so as not to discourage minorities from applying for jobs. Its advertisements and catalogs have
long featured models who were overwhelmingly white.
- to stop focusing on predominantly white fraternities and sororities in its recruitment;
- agreed to hire a monitor, to provide diversity training
to all managers who do hiring
- and to revise performance evaluations for
managers, making progress in diversity goals a factor in bonuses and
compensation.
Bill Lann Lee, the plaintiffs' lead lawyer and former
director of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said
Abercrombie had refused to hire many minority students who had
impressive work and school records. He added that the percentages of
minority and women managers at Abercrombie were far below
industry averages. "We're talking about discrimination being visited on
some of the best and the brightest within their community," Mr. Lee
said.
He applauded the settlement, approved yesterday by Judge Susan Illston
of Federal District Court. "The import of this settlement is that a
major American company has stepped forward and become a model," Mr. Lee
said.
Abercrombie did not admit guilt. In a statement, Mike Jeffries,
Abercrombie's chairman, said: "We have, and always have had, no
tolerance for discrimination. We decided to settle this suit because we
felt that a long, drawn-out dispute would have been harmful to the
company and distracting to management."
Several industry analysts said the settlement would help Abercrombie's
marketing. The company has 700 stores and 22,000 employees and had $1.7
billion in sales last year. "Their profile, their image is going to
evolve," said Robin S. Murchison, a retail analyst with Jefferies &
Company. "It will still be the cool kids. You can walk onto any Ivy
League campus and there's a lot more going on than Waspy-looking guys
and girls. I think they'll tap into that. I actually think it will work
to their advantage."
http://www.afjustice.com
Adam’s Mark
The Adam’s
Mark hotel chain
settled race discrimination lawsuits brought by the DOJ, Florida, and
some African Americans who attended last year’s Black College Reunion.
The agreements include $5.9 million payouts, increased training for
staff and regular updates to the DOJ. Adam’s Mark will also become one
of the event’s first corporate sponsors, kicking in $112,000 a year for
three years.
Although, Adam's Mark initially agreed to an
NAACP's $ 8 million settlement, the trial judge refused to approve the
settlement on procedural grounds. That decision is on appeal and Adam's
Mark has refused to support the appeal, or to otherwise settle the
guests' and the State the State of Florida's case.
http://www.naacp.org/work/legal/adamsmark.shtml
Allstate Insurance Co. (April 28, 2004)
The U.S. Supreme Court denied
Allstate's bid to end a suit by Texas and Florida policyholders who
claim that the use of credit scoring unfairly discriminates against
minorities by raising their rates and violates the U.S. Fair Housing
Act.
The class action law suit,
Jose C.
DeHoyos, et al. v. Allstate Corporation, et al. was filed
in the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas, in
November, 2001. The suit,
alleges that Allstate raised plaintiffs' auto insurance premiums or
assigned them to a higher-cost subsidiary based on race, due to
Allstate's use of geographical redlining.
The plaintiffs' suit argues that the use of credit scoring based upon
the location of the policyholders' residence is
intentional discrimination that results in a "disparate impact" against
minority policyholders. The case alleges that such credit scoring
criteria constitute racial
discrimination in violation of the U.S. Fair Housing Act.
In 2002 a federal trial judge allowed the suit to proceed. The court
rejected Allstate's argument.
n September, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
in New Orleans affirmed the decision to deny Allstate's motion to
dismiss.
With this latest Supreme Court affirmation, the case now proceeds to
trial on its merits.
http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/04/28/41541.htm
In 1941, the federal
Fair
Employment Practices Commission was established to hear
complaints of
racial discrimination in war related industries.
*Note that the appeal is to white
self-interest rather than to equity, or justice.
American
Eagle
What Some
Call Racist at
American Eagle, Others Say Was in Jest, Scott McCartney,
The Wall Street Journal, April
20, 1999
Amtrak
#1
Amtrak had
barely settled
with a group of black engineers on March 3, when lawyers in another
class action suit announced they had widened the scope of their case
against the railroad. The March 3 settlement, which includes a $16
million payment to the plaintiffs, covered engineers in the northeast.
The expanded suit now covers all African American employees
Apple Computers
Apple Computer has been slapped with a $40 million racial
discrimination lawsuit charging that the company unfairly sacked an
African-American employee. Described by the plaintiff's attorney as
"one the largest racial
discrimination cases in U.S. history," the suit alleges the former
employee was denied promotions and standard perks, isolated from
co-workers and then fired for a trivial offense.
Augusta
National Golf Club (c. 2004)
BellSouth (June 30, 2003)
A
Federal lawsuit has been filed against the Atlanta-based telephone
giant BellSouth Corporation alleging that the company systematically
discriminates against African American salaried and hourly workers.
According to the suit, BellSouth routinely impedes the advancement of
African American employees and pays them less than similar white
employees. The company employs about 100,000 workers and this suit was
filed on behalf of about 15,000 - 20,000 African American employees.
The lawsuit alleges that the discriminatory practices outlined in the
complaint have been long standing. BellSouth has a history of using
invalid tests that even its own executives don't trust and
administering those tests and other prerequisites to promotion in a
discriminatory manner. According to the lawsuit, nearly 25% of
BellSouth employees are African American but only 13% of those
employees hold professional jobs and only 5-6% of the African American
employees have advanced to senior manager or officer positions.
Boeing
#1
Boeing settled a racial discrimination suit filed by black
employees in 1999 for $15 million.
SEATTLE, May 14 (Reuters) -
Boeing
Co. is in
discussions aimed at settling a gender discrimination
class-action lawsuits slated to begin on Monday, sources
familiar with the case said.
The
case
involves 28,000 women seeking back pay
and punitive damages, claiming Boeing paid them less than their
male counterparts and tolerated sexual intimidation and
improper advances.
The
No. 2
Pentagon contractor and the world's No. 2
commercial jet maker previously paid $14.5 million to correct
pay inequality, but plaintiffs claim a company study and
government investigations showed a broader problem. Damages could total
hundreds of millions of dollars, some
observers estimate.
Women
filed
additional lawsuits in several locations,
though cases in Southern California, St. Louis and Wichita,
Kansas, were dismissed. Another case in Tulsa, Oklahoma, has
been granted class status but has not yet gone to trial.
#3 An additional
lawsuit is smaller, involving allegations of
racial discrimination from 1,850 Seattle-area engineers and
technical workers with ties to seven countries: Iran,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Cambodia, Vietnam and the
Philippines.
Budget
Rent-A-Car
One of the nation’s largest
auto rental firms told a Michigan court its liabilities could reach
$350 million in a class action suit charging racial discrimination
against customers. Budget’s claim enabled the company to move the trial
from district court, where it was being heard by an African American
judge, to federal court.
Citigroup
Coca
Cola (c. 2001)
The law firm of Mehri
& Skalet has brought two landmark race discrimination lawsuits. One
led in 1997 to a $176 million settlement with Texaco, now a part of
Chevron Texaco (NYSE:CVX - News). The other ended in 2001 with
Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE:KO - News) settling for $192 million.
"Coca-Cola
continued to move to deflect criticism of its treatment of
African-American employees. CEO Douglas Daft announced in mid-March
that executive pay would be linked to diversity goals, and a week later
named two black executives to senior positions. Juan D. Johnson, 42, of
Baton Rouge, will become director of diversity. Coretha Rushing 43, was
promoted to head of human resources. On March 31, plaintiffs made a
settlement offer. Some major shareholders are pressing Coke to resolve
its race problem."
Cracker Barrel Restaurants (5/04/04)
Black customers
at many Cracker Barrel restaurants were seated in areas segregated from
white patrons, frequently received inferior service, often were made to
wait longer for tables, and sometimes
were denied service by white employees, according to a Justice Department civil rights
settlement announced Monday. In one
restaurant, for example, the investigation uncovered a section called
"the Ghetto" where black patrons were seated, according to Justice
Department officials.
Cracker Barrel agreed to
implement a plan that addresses allegations in a Justice Department
lawsuit and consent decree filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta. The
lawsuit contends that Cracker Barrel violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act
by "engaging in a pattern or practice of discrimination against
African-American customers" at dozens of restaurants, mainly in the
Southeast.
Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., based in Lebanon, Tenn., has
been the target of several lawsuits filed by black customers who say
they received poor service compared with white patrons.
Department of Justice investigators found that blacks often had
exceptionally long waits for tables compared with whites, were seated
in racially segregated areas in restaurants Blacks who complained about
poor service also were treated less favorably than whites.
The investigation found evidence of the problems at more than 50
restaurants in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia. Acosta said 80 percent of the 150
employees or former employees interviewed in the probe said they had
witnessed or experienced discriminatory treatment at Cracker Barrel
restaurants, with managers often directing or condoning the behavior.
Delta
Funding vs. FTC, HUD, DOJ
Subprime lender Delta
Funding Corp. is paying $12.25 million and changing its ways to
forestall a pummeling from several government bodies. The FTC, the DOJ,
and HUD all attacked the company for deceptive and illegal lending
practices in low-income areas. The settlement was wrapped into an
earlier deal with the New York State Banking Department
Denny’s
In 1994, Denny's
reached a $54 million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging
discrimination against blacks that resulted in broad changes, including
more black restaurant franchisees and an increase in minority
supervisory employees.
Grand Slam Breakfast?,
Guillermo, the Progressive
Deutsche
Bank
Eddie Bauer
Three
Blacks Win
$1 Million in Bauer Store Incident, The
New York Times, Oct. 10, 1997
Federal
Reserve Bank - Chicago (c. March 28, 2004)
Chicago FED may face $100 million
in claims
On March 28, a U.S. District
Court judge in Chicago gave class action status to a lawsuit by 14
current and former employees of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
The plaintiff class established by the judge includes African Americans
employed as far back as 1964.
First American Bank Corp.
AT&T Business
- Financial News - (7-14-2004)
The suit alleged that
First American Bank Corp. engaged in a practice
called redlining where loans and other services were denied in black
and Hispanic neighborhoods in and around Chicago and Kankakee, Ill.
According to federal authorities, bank officials made statements
indicating that its business practices were based on racial
stereotypes, including that it did not provide a full range of services
to minorities because they "equated making loans in low income or
minority neighborhoods with making bad loans."
Ford Motor
Company (Jan. 25, 1997)
Ford to pay
$4 million, hire more
women and minorities
Ford Motor Co. agreed to pay
$3.8 million to women and minorities to settle discrimination charges
with the Department of Labor. The automaker also agreed to hire women
and minorities.
The New York Times, January 25,
1997.p .
220
Georgia Pacific (April 3, 2001)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today
announced a $200,000 settlement of a racial harassment lawsuit against
Georgia-Pacific
Corporation, a leading global manufacturer and distributor of paper and
building products, on behalf
of four African-American employees. The workers were subjected to a
racially hostile work
environment, which included severe and repeated acts of racial
harassment, racial slurs, jokes, comments, and grafitti, by a white
supervisor at the company's facility in Butner, N.C. Additionally, one
employee was
fired after complaining about the harassment.
Home
Depot (June 2, 2004)
Johnson and
Johnson (June 16, 2004)
Charge
Filed Against Johnson &
Johnson
for Using Discriminatory Credit Checks to Allegedly Deny African
American Applicants Jobs (BUSINESS WIRE)
On June
16, 2004, Brenda
Matthews filed a racial discrimination lawsuit against Johnson &
Johnson with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC") for
violating Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing
to hire her and other minority job seekers on account of race.
Ms. Matthews
alleges that Johnson
&
Johnson rescinded a job offer as a patent specialist based
solely on her credit score. Personnel
experts,
however, say that credit scores bear no relation to job performance.
Matthews'
attorney, Adam
T. Klein, said, "Johnson &
Johnson's use of credit checks is racial discrimination. Federal civil
rights laws prohibit employers from using credit scores and other
selection criteria without any relationship to job performance
that penalize minority job applicants" (disproportionately -Ed).
"That is what happened to Brenda
Matthews."
Minorities
often have lower credit scores because of more limited
opportunities to obtain credit. Attorney Bill Lann Lee, former
Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights at the U. S. Department of Justice explained, "The use of credit
checks to screen job applicants is a growing phenomenon among
employers. That is unfortunate. Not only are credit scores private
information unrelated to job performance, the practice perpetuates
prior discrimination in our society against minority families."
"African
Americans traditionally
have been excluded from credit
opportunities that provide positive credit scores," according to Mr.
Lee. "Although they have a higher savings rate than whites, blacks have
been subject to historic discrimination in the credit market."
Microsoft
(c. 1/01)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which filed the
lawsuit in September 2001, said the historic deal was the
second-largest gender-related settlement ever, and the largest with a
Wall Street firm. The deal, finalized over the weekend on the eve of
the trial's opening statements, ends a nearly three-year battle that
damaged the brokerage's reputation with allegations it tolerated
groping and crude comments about sex.
Merrill Lynch
Merrill Lynch settles
sex discrimination claim (July 12, 2004)
By Alex Morales. Business Report
London - Merrill
Lynch, the world's biggest securities firm by capital,
settled a sexual discrimination case out of court by paying more than
£500 000 (R5.65 million) to Elizabeth Weston, a former lawyer
with the
bank, The Times reported at the weekend, without citing anyone.
Merrill did not
admit liability when it made the payment and had previously denied
Weston's claims, the newspaper said.
The bank said
differences had been resolved and Weston would withdraw
her complaint. Merrill spokesperson Nigel Webb did not reply to a voice
message seeking comment on the report.
Weston, who
worked at Merrill Lynch Investment Managers in London,
filed a sexual discrimination claim in March against the bank's fund
management unit. The suit was also filed against a former Merrill
employee.
Merrill is
contesting a separate sexual discrimination suit for more
than $13 million (R79.2 million) by its former head of European private
banking, Stephanie Villalba. If successful, she will win the largest
award from a UK employment tribunal.
Morgan
Stanley settles sex-bias case
By
Adam Shell, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Rather than
risk letting a jury
decide if it discriminated against its female employees by paying them
less than men and passing them over for promotions, Wall Street titan
Morgan Stanley agreed Monday to pay
$54 million to settle a high-profile sex-bias lawsuit.
The U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which filed the
lawsuit in September 2001, said the historic deal was the
second-largest gender-related settlement ever, and the largest with a
Wall Street firm. The deal, finalized over the weekend on the eve of
the trial's opening statements, ends a nearly three-year battle that
damaged the brokerage's reputation with allegations it tolerated
groping and crude comments about sex.
NEW
YORK (AP) -- Wall Street brokerage
Morgan Stanley has agreed to pay $54 million to settle claims of
widespread sex discrimination at the firm, including strip-club outings
with clients and higher pay for men.
The settlement was
announced Monday just as a jury, including eight women, was to hear a
trial in the case, brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and former Morgan Stanley bond seller Allison Schieffelin.
Morgan Stanley will
also set aside $2 million to pay for diversity training and
anti-discrimination programs.
"The
consent decree is a watershed in safeguarding and protecting the rights
of women on Wall Street," said U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman,
who was to hear the case.
The EEOC represented
hundreds of women who claimed men at Morgan
Stanley invited clients on men-only strip club outings, groped women
and made lewd comments.
In addition, the
EEOC claimed women were passed over for promotions
because of their gender. Morgan Stanley acknowledged that few women
were promoted to the highest levels of the firm but denied
discrimination.
Smith Barney
Gender Discrimination
Lawsuit (7/27/98)
Smith Barney
Settlement
A federal judge approved the settlement of a lawsuit alleging that
the Garden City office of Smith Barney was more like a college
fraternity than an office, resolving a dispute that may benefit more
than 22,000 women. The suit will allow women to settle harassment or
discrimination complaints through private mediation instead of
industry-sponsored arbitration. The company will also spend $15 million
on diversity programs. One plaintiff alleged that a supervisor kissed
her on the lips during her only visit to the basement room, dubbed the
"Boom Boom Room," where a toilet bowl hung from the ceiling and men
went to drink Bloody Marys from a garbage can. When the company denied
that discrimination was a widespread problem, more than 1,000 women
called the lawyers to complain of abuse in their offices.
Racial Discrimination Lawsuit (7/16/01)
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today
announced a $635,000 settlement
of an employment discrimination lawsuit against Salomon Smith
Barney (Salomon), a subsidiary of Citigroup and the nation's second
largest retail brokerage firm.
The suit, filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,was
brought by EEOC on behalf of
13 current or former employees of Salomon's Greenwich Street Data
Center who were subjected to
disparate treatment and harassment based on their race and/or national
origin.
The
suit also charged the global financial firm with paying the class of
workers disparate wages,
denying them salary increases, promotions, and equal opportunities for
promotion because of their
race and/or countries of origin.
The settlement was
approved late Friday, June 13, as a Consent Decree by the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. In addition to the
$635,000 in monetary payments to
the victims, Salomon agreed to take major steps to enhance the
promotional opportunities of four
charging parties who are still employed as computer operators and to
develop specific criteria for
the promotion of computer operators in the Data Center. Additionally,
the Consent Decree requires
that Salomon:
-
Continue to maintain a policy prohibiting discrimination in the
workplace and a procedure for employees to report complaints of
discrimination;
-
Post a notice of its policies, practices, and intent not to
discriminate against employees;
-
Provide all managers and supervisors in the Data Center with
equal employment opportunity training; and
-
Provide written reports to the EEOC about its training efforts
in the Data Center.
Texaco
(c. 1997)
Racism at Texaco, The New York
Times, Nov. 6, 1996
"Senior executives were
taped deriding minority employees in racist terms – and plotting to
destroy documents subpoenaed in a Federal discrimination case. The
excerpts (of the tapes) come from a meeting held in August 1994 during
which three senior executives discussed a class-action lawsuit filed by
black employees who charged that Texaco had discriminated against them
and created a hostile work environment. The Federal Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission essentially validated the suit, ruling that
there was reason to believe Texaco guilty of company-wide racial bias."
The
law firm of Mehri & Skalet has brought two landmark race
discrimination lawsuits. One led in 1997 to a $176 million settlement
with Texaco, now a part of Chevron Texaco. The other ended in 2001 with
Coca-Cola Co. settling for $192 million.
U.S.
Department of Agriculture (January 21, 2003)
Racial Discrimination by
USDA Threatens African American Farmers
The
USDA's record of racial discrimination is well documented. In 1997, the
USDA Civil Rights Action Team (CRAT) revealed decades of racial
discrimination that had put thousands of African-American farmers out
of business. By denying or delaying loans essential to financing their
crops, and by withholding other federal farm support on a widespread
basis, USDA employees forced African American farmers to lose their
land, their livelihoods, and their communities.
According the CRAT
report, "... in several states it took three
times as long on average to process African-American loan applications
as it did non-minority applications." "In 1994, 94% of all county
committees [that grant these loans] had no female or minority
representation." That pattern of non-representation continues today.
In 1982, the U.S. Civil
Rights Commission had warned, "unless government policies of neglect
and discrimination are changed, there may be no black farmers by the
year 2000."
In
1999, a class action racial
discrimination suit (Pigford vs.
Glickman) was settled with an
agreement to provide financial restitution. To date, more than $630
million has been paid out to farmers and former farmers who could
document that they were unfairly denied loans.
However, three years
later, the USDA's delays and rejection of thousands of applications
points to a continued pattern of discrimination in the grant approval
process.
In a December 15, 2002,
article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, ("Has
USDA settlement changed anything?") cited
numerous cases of on
going discrimination. One case involved a USDA
employee, Arthur Hall, who greeted a new African-American secretary
with a noose in his office. The USDA's general counsel for civil
rights, Arlean Leland, investigated the incident and dismissed
this act
as nothing more than "very poor judgment". She praised Hall as a
"committed federal public servant." The message to USDA employees from
her decision is that discrimination may continue as usual.
Since
the 1999 suit, only four of the USDA employees accused of
discrimination have been dismissed. As
Congresswoman Eva Clayton in the
House Agriculture Committee points out, "If any corporation paid out
[even] $10 million for the behavior of their employee...they would be
out of there...No one would have tolerated that."
U.S.
Marshall’s Service
Whistle-Blowing Marshall
Tells of Long Harassment, Selwyn Rabb, The New York Times, October 5, 1997
Wal-Mart
Landmark Wal-Mart Sex-Bias Suit
Moves Forward, NPR (June 23, 2004)
Wal-Mart, the world's largest
private employer, is facing what
attorneys call the biggest sex-discrimination lawsuit in history. A
federal judge in San Francisco has allowed a group of female plaintiffs
to proceed with a class-action lawsuit against the retailer. They
charge Wal-Mart systematically discriminated against women in pay,
promotions and training.
Wal-Mart in record sex-bias, USA Today
(June 23, 2004)
The women who filed the case against Wal-Mart claim women are
paid 5%
to 15% less than men in comparable positions, despite having higher
performance ratings and seniority, and receive fewer promotions to
management than men. The women are seeking changes in how Wal-Mart
operates, including a
court-appointed monitor to oversee employment practices, back earnings
for women in the class and punitive damages.
... plaintiffs paint
a picture of a harsh, anti-woman culture in which complaints go
unanswered and the women who make them are targeted for retaliation.
Based on filings Wal-Mart made to the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the claim details how 72% of the company's sales staff are
women but only one-third of them make it into management, despite
Wal-Mart's promote-from-within policy. That means, according to EEOC
data, that Wal-Mart doesn't just rank below its current retailing
peers, which have an average of 56% women managers, but it also ranks
below rivals' levels of 25 years ago.
... The sexual
discrimination suit is the latest in a string of recent legal problems
at the company. Wal-Mart has taken an aggressive, no-holds-barred
litigation stance for years that has drawn the ire of courts
nationwide. Judges have sanctioned the company more than 130 times, in
40,000 cases in the past decade...
Indeed, since
1994,
the EEOC has filed 16 suits against Wal-Mart for disability
discrimination. That is the most Americans with Disabilities
Act-related EEOC suits of any U.S. company, according to the EEOC. "I
have never seen this kind of blatant disregard for the law," says EEOC
lawyer Mary Jo O'Neill. "You get the impression that Wal-Mart is an
employer that, at the top, isn't committed to taking the [ADA] and
federal employment laws seriously."
Discrimination on Wall
St.? The Numbers Tell the Story
New York Times
By
PATRICK McGEEHAN
During
several years of drawn-out litigation over how they treat the women
they employ, Wall Street firms have adamantly disputed all contentions
that they discriminate - until the time has come to do the math.
Data from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission show that men
made up more than two-thirds of the officials and managers in the
securities industry in 2002, even higher than the ratio in other
industries.
The industry's own
numbers look more lopsided. The
Securities Industry Association says that more than half of all
employees in the securities industry are white men but, more important,
white men fill about four out of five executive management positions
and make up more than 70 percent of investment bankers, traders and
brokers.
Despite the lawsuits (against Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley,
CitiCorp, and Duetschebank-ed.), the demographics of Wall Street
firms have not
changed significantly in recent years, according to data compiled by
the Securities Industry Association. Indeed, men held a slightly higher
percentage of the jobs in the industry last year compared with the
level in 1999. Meanwhile, women have continued to hold most of the
low-level jobs like sales assistant, according to the association.
|
