Supreme Court Hears Arguments To Determine If Class Action Lawsuit Challenging Sex Discrimination At Wal-Mart Should Go Forward

ACLU And Other Groups Had Filed Brief In Support Of Lawsuit FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; WASHINGTON – The United States Supreme Court is hearing arguments today to determine if a class action lawsuit challenging discriminatory practices at Wal-Mart should go forward. The American Civil Liberties Union, along with 33 other civil rights and women’s rights organizations, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. “It is an affront to our basic values of fairness and equality to deny women equal opportunities in the workplace,” said Lenora M. Lapidus, Director of the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Employees who have been discriminated against must be able to seek justice. A class action lawsuit is the best way for the women of Wal-Mart to be heard.” A group of female employees initially sued Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, 10 years ago, claiming the company paid them lower wages and gave them fewer promotions than men – even when they had higher performance ratings and more seniority than their male counterparts. The women claimed the treatment violated their rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which ensures protection against sex discrimination in the workplace. “Inequality in the workplace is still a persistent and shameful reality,” said Ariela Migdal, staff attorney with the ACLU Women’s Rights Project. “Outdated stereotypes of women’s roles not only limit opportunities for employees, but also hurt the families those employees are trying to support. A class action lawsuit is the best way for Wal-Mart’s employees to challenge unlawful discrimination.” The evidence presented by the plaintiffs includes reports that Wal-Mart managers across the country relied on archaic sex stereotypes in denying promotions and equal pay for women. In court declarations, women described how they were told that men deserve the promotions and higher pay because they have families to support, while women are just working to make “extra money.” They also described how they were confined to departments such as cosmetics and women’s clothing, and denied jobs in hardware, meat-cutting and firearms. Other women reported that they were told they could never advance because they were not part of a “boys’ club” or were told they “should be home barefoot and pregnant” instead of advancing their careers. More information on this case can be found at:

Twitter Follow

Follow us on

Contact Us

ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT:  This communication or portions thereof may be considered "advertising" as defined by Section 6157(c) of the California Business and Professions Code or within the jurisdiction in which you are viewing this.  Nothing in the discussion above is intended to be a representation or guarantee about the outcome of any legal proceeding in which you may be involved.  By providing the information above in this format, Michel & Associates is not soliciting you to hire it to handle a specific legal matter you may currently have or be anticipating commencing in the future.  Notwithstanding the discussion above, you should not act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content on this site without seeking appropriate legal advice regarding your particular circumstances from an attorney licensed to practice law.  This communication is informational only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Michel & Associates.  Michel & Associates's attorneys are licensed to practice in California, Texas, and the District of Columbia.