Sex-bias lawsuit against Wal-Mart is given class-action status

A federal judge Tuesday turned a sexual discrimination case against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores Inc. into a class-action suit including 1.6 million of the chain's present and former female workers, making it the largest civil rights class-action in history to be filed against a private company.

The lawsuit alleges that Wal-Mart pays its female workers less than their male counterparts, regardless of their higher seniority and performance ratings. It also says that women receive fewer promotions than men, and if they are promoted it takes longer for women than men to advance up the corporate ladder.

Wal-Mart has more than 3,500 stores across the United States. And with women currently comprising two-thirds of its 1.2 million workers, Wal-Mart employs more women than any other company in the United States.

Wal-Mart said it planned to appeal the decision by U.S. District Judge Martin J. Jenkins in San Francisco.

"Let's keep in mind that today's ruling has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the case. Judge Jenkins is simply saying he thinks it meets the legal requirements necessary to move forward as a class action. We strongly disagree with his decision and will seek an appeal," Wal-Mart spokeswoman Mona Williams said in a statement released Tuesday.

"While we cannot comment on the specifics of the litigation, we can say we continue to evaluate our employment practices. For example, earlier this month Wal-Mart announced a new job classification and pay structure for hourly associates. This new pay plan was developed with the assistance of third party consultants and is designed to ensure internal equity and external competitiveness."

Wal-Mart has come under increasing fire recently for both its labor practices and its reputation of overrunning small towns across the country.

Inglewood, Calif., residents voted in April to keep Wal-Mart from building a supercenter without public hearings and an environmental impact study. In May, the National Trust for Historic Preservation said it was adding Vermont to its 2004 list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places because it was at risk of being swamped by big-box stores, particularly Wal-Mart. And last week in Maryland, the Giant Food grocery chain and the union that represents its workers backed legislation aimed at keeping Wal-Mart superstores out of Montgomery County.

The class-action suit against Wal-Mart involves allegations of discrimination and a working environment where men are routinely treated better than women.

Patricia Surgeson, who worked at a California Wal-Mart for nearly four years, said she has been both harassed and passed over for raises and promotions. One of six plaintiffs in the original lawsuit against the company, Surgeson began working in the Tire and Lube Express department at Wal-Mart in 1997 and said a co-worker there touched her and made sexually harassing remarks, according to court documents.

When she later worked in lay-away, Surgeson was made department manager and promised a raise. But she never received her raise, and her title eventually was taken away when a store manager decided the lay-away department no longer needed a manager, according to the documents. When Surgeson left that department, she was replaced by a male worker who was given the title of department manager and paid more than she was, the documents say.

Surgeson was eventually moved to a job in the cash office, where she was expected to work overtime without breaks. Many male workers were earning more than she was, and Surgeson was denied requests for raises, the documents said. The court papers also say that Surgeson's inquiries about Wal-Mart's assistant manager training program were brushed off.

Surgeson resigned from Wal-Mart in 2001 and became part of the lawsuit shortly thereafter.

Jenkins' ruling to allows the lawsuit filed on her behalf and a handful of others to represent the interests of all females who work or have worked at Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market stores around the country since Dec. 26, 1998.

In his ruling, Jenkins said the request for class-action certification comes on the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. He wrote: "This anniversary serves as a reminder of the importance of the courts in addressing the denial of equal treatment under the law wherever and by whomever it occurs."

Jenkins also noted the size of Wal-Mart, saying that gender and race discrimination are forbidden in all workplaces, including at large companies.

Because the lawsuit represents so many workers at such a large company, other businesses are likely to take notice, said David L. Jacobson, a partner who handles employment issues at Baltimore law firm Blades & Rosenfeld PA.

"If it was a 70-person company in California, it wouldn't have hit the press," Jacobson said, "but when it's Wal-Mart, it obviously is national news and raises issues for everybody else in the industry."

Joseph Sellers, a partner at Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll PLLC, a Washington law firm representing the plaintiffs, said they are hoping for a trial within the next year.