SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Justice for Betty Dukes and the Women of Wal-Mart?
"We, the women of Wal-Mart, will have our day in court," Betty Dukes told me almost seven years ago, declaiming from a park bench near her lawyer's office in Berkeley, California. "[Wal-Mart] will answer our charges--that they have treated us unfairly and we deserved better."
Mar 30, 2011
"We, the women of Wal-Mart, will have our day in court," Betty Dukes told me almost seven years ago, declaiming from a park bench near her lawyer's office in Berkeley, California. "[Wal-Mart] will answer our charges--that they have treated us unfairly and we deserved better."
Dukes, who still works at Wal-Mart, is the lead plaintiff in Betty Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, the largest civil rights class action suit in history, which accuses the retail giant of sex discrimination in pay, promotions and hiring. The potential class has at times included more than a million women (recently, though, estimates have run closer to the hundreds of thousands). Dukes and her colleagues have yet to have their day in court, all these years later, and if an army of right-wing opponents has its way, they never will.
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the certification of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart. That means the justices must now decide, not whether Betty Dukes and her co-workers experienced discrimination--that crucial question may be left forever undecided by our legal system--but whether their case should move forward as a class action suit.
At issue is whether it is possible to make any legal claims at all about institutional discrimination at a large company, as Wal-Mart argues that the class is too large and that plaintiffs' description of its practices not credible: how could so many women encounter sexism from so many managers? Yet female employees at Wal-Mart have been paid less than men in nearly every job category, and promoted less often, despite lower turnover rates and better job performance ratings.
Though legal arguments were made yesterday, a look at the authors of the amicus briefs on both sides shows that the certification of Dukes is really an economic and ideological battle. On Betty's side, liberal groups like Consumers Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Public Citizen--anyone who believes that citizens should be able to use the legal system to wrest systemic change from large corporations--have weighed in.
On behalf of Wal-Mart, much fatter cats have rallied, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Intel, Altria, Bank of America, Del Monte Foods, Fedex, Microsoft, Costco and many more. In addition to these corporate interests, conservative champions of an even more libertarian order--the Washington Legal Foundation, Atlantic Legal Foundation, New England Legal Foundation--are also lending Wal-Mart their support. Dukes vs. Wal-Mart's opponents are united in their desire to suppress the ability of workers and consumers to sue large companies.
The Supreme Court itself may have an ideological agenda here too. As Jeffrey Toobin and other observers have pointed out, it's unlikely that the Court would have agreed to hear Dukes unless the justices wanted to strike it down. After all, class action suits have been such beloved bugbears of the right, and some of the justices are fierce warriors for conservative causes.
No decision is expected on Dukes for at least a month, and possibly not until the end of June. If the certification is struck down, it will be a triumph for the right, making class action lawsuits even more difficult to litigate and win.
To be sure, the plaintiffs have already enjoyed some victories. The case has exposed Wal-Mart's employment practices to the public, and everyday sexism in its stores no longer goes completely unchallenged. Betty Dukes says the lawsuit has changed Wal-Mart. It is now easier for women to learn about open positions and to enter the ranks of management. "I have personally been thanked by women who have been promoted," Dukes said today, speaking hoarsely, as she has been talking about her case nonstop these last few days.
But even if the Court upholds certification of Dukes and the women do get their day in court, we have to ask why we have become so dependent on such an inefficient means of justice. Betty Dukes brought her case ten years ago, and courts have still not even begun to debate its merits. With stronger unions, more aggressive government enforcement, and better-organized social movements, class action suits like Dukes probably wouldn't even be needed.
Yet the Supreme Court challenge--and ferocious lineup of briefs--is a testament to the tenacity of the corporate elite and of the right. The class action may be a feeble instrument of justice, but it's one of the few we have left, and that's why they're so eager to take it away.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 The Nation
Liza Featherstone
Liza Featherstone is a contributing editor for The Nation and a journalist based in New York City. She is the co-author of "Students Against Sweatshops: The Making of a Movement" (2002) and author of "Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart" (2005).
"We, the women of Wal-Mart, will have our day in court," Betty Dukes told me almost seven years ago, declaiming from a park bench near her lawyer's office in Berkeley, California. "[Wal-Mart] will answer our charges--that they have treated us unfairly and we deserved better."
Dukes, who still works at Wal-Mart, is the lead plaintiff in Betty Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, the largest civil rights class action suit in history, which accuses the retail giant of sex discrimination in pay, promotions and hiring. The potential class has at times included more than a million women (recently, though, estimates have run closer to the hundreds of thousands). Dukes and her colleagues have yet to have their day in court, all these years later, and if an army of right-wing opponents has its way, they never will.
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the certification of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart. That means the justices must now decide, not whether Betty Dukes and her co-workers experienced discrimination--that crucial question may be left forever undecided by our legal system--but whether their case should move forward as a class action suit.
At issue is whether it is possible to make any legal claims at all about institutional discrimination at a large company, as Wal-Mart argues that the class is too large and that plaintiffs' description of its practices not credible: how could so many women encounter sexism from so many managers? Yet female employees at Wal-Mart have been paid less than men in nearly every job category, and promoted less often, despite lower turnover rates and better job performance ratings.
Though legal arguments were made yesterday, a look at the authors of the amicus briefs on both sides shows that the certification of Dukes is really an economic and ideological battle. On Betty's side, liberal groups like Consumers Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Public Citizen--anyone who believes that citizens should be able to use the legal system to wrest systemic change from large corporations--have weighed in.
On behalf of Wal-Mart, much fatter cats have rallied, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Intel, Altria, Bank of America, Del Monte Foods, Fedex, Microsoft, Costco and many more. In addition to these corporate interests, conservative champions of an even more libertarian order--the Washington Legal Foundation, Atlantic Legal Foundation, New England Legal Foundation--are also lending Wal-Mart their support. Dukes vs. Wal-Mart's opponents are united in their desire to suppress the ability of workers and consumers to sue large companies.
The Supreme Court itself may have an ideological agenda here too. As Jeffrey Toobin and other observers have pointed out, it's unlikely that the Court would have agreed to hear Dukes unless the justices wanted to strike it down. After all, class action suits have been such beloved bugbears of the right, and some of the justices are fierce warriors for conservative causes.
No decision is expected on Dukes for at least a month, and possibly not until the end of June. If the certification is struck down, it will be a triumph for the right, making class action lawsuits even more difficult to litigate and win.
To be sure, the plaintiffs have already enjoyed some victories. The case has exposed Wal-Mart's employment practices to the public, and everyday sexism in its stores no longer goes completely unchallenged. Betty Dukes says the lawsuit has changed Wal-Mart. It is now easier for women to learn about open positions and to enter the ranks of management. "I have personally been thanked by women who have been promoted," Dukes said today, speaking hoarsely, as she has been talking about her case nonstop these last few days.
But even if the Court upholds certification of Dukes and the women do get their day in court, we have to ask why we have become so dependent on such an inefficient means of justice. Betty Dukes brought her case ten years ago, and courts have still not even begun to debate its merits. With stronger unions, more aggressive government enforcement, and better-organized social movements, class action suits like Dukes probably wouldn't even be needed.
Yet the Supreme Court challenge--and ferocious lineup of briefs--is a testament to the tenacity of the corporate elite and of the right. The class action may be a feeble instrument of justice, but it's one of the few we have left, and that's why they're so eager to take it away.
Liza Featherstone
Liza Featherstone is a contributing editor for The Nation and a journalist based in New York City. She is the co-author of "Students Against Sweatshops: The Making of a Movement" (2002) and author of "Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Worker's Rights at Wal-Mart" (2005).
"We, the women of Wal-Mart, will have our day in court," Betty Dukes told me almost seven years ago, declaiming from a park bench near her lawyer's office in Berkeley, California. "[Wal-Mart] will answer our charges--that they have treated us unfairly and we deserved better."
Dukes, who still works at Wal-Mart, is the lead plaintiff in Betty Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Stores, the largest civil rights class action suit in history, which accuses the retail giant of sex discrimination in pay, promotions and hiring. The potential class has at times included more than a million women (recently, though, estimates have run closer to the hundreds of thousands). Dukes and her colleagues have yet to have their day in court, all these years later, and if an army of right-wing opponents has its way, they never will.
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the certification of Dukes vs. Wal-Mart. That means the justices must now decide, not whether Betty Dukes and her co-workers experienced discrimination--that crucial question may be left forever undecided by our legal system--but whether their case should move forward as a class action suit.
At issue is whether it is possible to make any legal claims at all about institutional discrimination at a large company, as Wal-Mart argues that the class is too large and that plaintiffs' description of its practices not credible: how could so many women encounter sexism from so many managers? Yet female employees at Wal-Mart have been paid less than men in nearly every job category, and promoted less often, despite lower turnover rates and better job performance ratings.
Though legal arguments were made yesterday, a look at the authors of the amicus briefs on both sides shows that the certification of Dukes is really an economic and ideological battle. On Betty's side, liberal groups like Consumers Union, the United Food and Commercial Workers and Public Citizen--anyone who believes that citizens should be able to use the legal system to wrest systemic change from large corporations--have weighed in.
On behalf of Wal-Mart, much fatter cats have rallied, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, Intel, Altria, Bank of America, Del Monte Foods, Fedex, Microsoft, Costco and many more. In addition to these corporate interests, conservative champions of an even more libertarian order--the Washington Legal Foundation, Atlantic Legal Foundation, New England Legal Foundation--are also lending Wal-Mart their support. Dukes vs. Wal-Mart's opponents are united in their desire to suppress the ability of workers and consumers to sue large companies.
The Supreme Court itself may have an ideological agenda here too. As Jeffrey Toobin and other observers have pointed out, it's unlikely that the Court would have agreed to hear Dukes unless the justices wanted to strike it down. After all, class action suits have been such beloved bugbears of the right, and some of the justices are fierce warriors for conservative causes.
No decision is expected on Dukes for at least a month, and possibly not until the end of June. If the certification is struck down, it will be a triumph for the right, making class action lawsuits even more difficult to litigate and win.
To be sure, the plaintiffs have already enjoyed some victories. The case has exposed Wal-Mart's employment practices to the public, and everyday sexism in its stores no longer goes completely unchallenged. Betty Dukes says the lawsuit has changed Wal-Mart. It is now easier for women to learn about open positions and to enter the ranks of management. "I have personally been thanked by women who have been promoted," Dukes said today, speaking hoarsely, as she has been talking about her case nonstop these last few days.
But even if the Court upholds certification of Dukes and the women do get their day in court, we have to ask why we have become so dependent on such an inefficient means of justice. Betty Dukes brought her case ten years ago, and courts have still not even begun to debate its merits. With stronger unions, more aggressive government enforcement, and better-organized social movements, class action suits like Dukes probably wouldn't even be needed.
Yet the Supreme Court challenge--and ferocious lineup of briefs--is a testament to the tenacity of the corporate elite and of the right. The class action may be a feeble instrument of justice, but it's one of the few we have left, and that's why they're so eager to take it away.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.