2-9-07, 9:28 am

The largest class-action lawsuit in U.S. history filed against Wal-Mart will go forward to trial. A lawsuit filed on behalf of current and former Wal-Mart employees that claims the company systematically discriminated against women workers won a major victory in federal court earlier this week.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last Tuesday (2-6-07) that Wal-Mart's argument that it couldn't be held responsible for violating anti-discrimination laws because its 3,400 stores operate like independent entities should not stop the trial. The court rejected Wal-Mart's weak claim that it did not have a discriminatory corporate policy and that women should sue individual stores.

According to , a campaign of community activists that claims more than 315,000 online members, about 2 million former and current female employees of Wal-Mart are suing the company for gender discrimination. Wal-Mart faces more than 57 other wage and hour lawsuits across the nation.

On Tuesday, campaign Director Paul Blank said, 'Hopefully, today’s decision will help ‘wake-up’ Wal-Mart to the fact that this company must change into a responsible and moral employer because the American people will not tolerate discrimination or unfairness in the workplace.'

Though Wal-Mart insists that it has no discrimination policy, the facts indicate that discriminatory practices have been applied systematically. According to Wal-Mart Watch, a corporate ethics campaign, women comprise only 37.6% of assistant managers, 21.9% of co-managers, and 15.5% of store manager positions at Wal-Mart, despite the fact that women workers outnumber men by about 2 to 1. Also, it estimates that Wal-Mart promotes male employees to assistant manager and store manager positions two years faster than women.

In 1998, when a diversity panel set up by the company reported potential problems with discrimination of women, the company refused to accept the findings and disbanded the panel.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argued that Wal-Mart's claim that its stores operate independently is belied by the facts. Decisions such as pricing and official hiring and promotion policies are centralized. Additionally, store executives promote a common corporate culture through circulation of a national newsletter and tight control over store supervisors. The plaintiffs say that this corporate culture makes it clear why such a pattern of discrimination would be uniform across the country.

The class action lawsuit began in 2001 when Pittsburg, California Wal-Mart employee Betty Duke and several other employees sued the company for discrimination on the job. Despite receiving excellent employee reviews, Duke's supervisors refused to promote her or to provide pay raises as quickly as male counterparts. When she complained to her supervisors in 1997, they retaliated with demotions, cuts in her hours, refusal to provide training for advancement, and falsely accusing her of violating company policy.

Other women workers with similar complaints joined with Duke and were certified as a class by a San Francisco judge in 2001. Wal-Mart appealed this certification in 2004. Tuesday's ruling affirmed the original judge’s decision.

In its Tuesday ruling, the Ninth Circuit Court majority wrote: 'Plaintiff's expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiff's contention that female employees nationwide were subjected to a common pattern and practice of discrimination.'

Wal-Mart Watch executive director David Nassar stated, 'Despite Wal-Mart’s efforts to stonewall, delay and obfuscate, [the] judgment brings us miles closer to justice and vindication for two million victims of the company’s illegal and immoral gender discrimination.

Many observers see a direct link between Wal-Mart’s high profits (along with outrageous executive pay) and this unfair treatment of women workers. A report published by Wal-Mart Watch last year argues that consumers need to understand that Wal-Mart’s women employees 'effectively subsidize the store’s low prices.'

By devaluing the work of a majority of its employees (women) through discrimination, Wal-Mart executives knew they could enforce low wages and poor benefits. And because the company has successfully fought unionization efforts tooth and nail, Wal-Mart’s women workers’ only recourse for justice was through the courts where up to now Wal-Mart lawyers felt they would outmatch them. That miscalculation may end costing the world’s most profitable retailer billions.

--Joel Wendland can be reached at