abusesaffiliationarrow-downarrow-leftarrow-rightarrow-upattack-typeburgerchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-upClock iconclosedeletedevelopment-povertydiscriminationdollardownloademailenvironmentexternal-linkfacebookfiltergenderglobegroupshealthC4067174-3DD9-4B9E-AD64-284FDAAE6338@1xinformation-outlineinformationinstagraminvestment-trade-globalisationissueslabourlanguagesShapeCombined Shapeline, chart, up, arrow, graphLinkedInlocationmap-pinminusnewsorganisationotheroverviewpluspreviewArtboard 185profilerefreshIconnewssearchsecurityPathStock downStock steadyStock uptagticktooltiptwitteruniversalityweb

이 페이지는 한국어로 제공되지 않으며 English로 표시됩니다.

기사

2011년 2월 22일

저자:
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Impact Fund [counsel for respondents]

[PDF] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Betty Dukes, et al. - Brief for Respondents

This case challenges Wal-Mart’s uniform pay and promotion policies for its retail store employees. Those policies fail to provide any application or posting process for promotions to store management or job-related criteria for setting pay or making promotion decisions – standard practices in the American workplace. Instead, Wal-Mart has chosen to adopt and maintain highly subjective policies, which are implemented, monitored and enforced on a daily basis by its Home Office to ensure consistency in results...Relying on long-standing statutory and Supreme Court authority, plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart’s policies discriminate against women in violation of Title VII. The class is limited to female retail store workers, the majority of whom hold one of only five hourly jobs. Regardless of their job titles or store location, these women are subject to the same uniform personnel policies.