Introduction
The current case study details about the manner in which Wal-Mart discriminates against women. It provides a plethora of facts and details out the manner in which women are discriminated. This is despite the fact that Wal-Mart’s policies propose equal pay and promotion opportunities for men and women. However, in reality women are denied promotion opportunities and are paid far lesser than their male counterparts in this store. The case study further reveals that compared to its competitors females are not adequately represented in Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs further maintain that the retail chain has continued discrimination against women as a continuous and ongoing pattern by denying women opportunities for assignments, promotions and trainings, pay and dependency on practices and policies which otherwise help men to enjoy promotions and other benefits in the firm.
The matter has come to light when harassed women employees across 48 U.S. states filed sex discrimination complaints against Wal-Mart. The charges were filed with the ‘Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’. This commission is entrusted to ensure that the legal rights of workers are levied to them by employers. However, the Supreme Court quashed the charges maintaining that Wal-Mart represented a diverse and large group and it could not be considered as a ‘class’. However, the employees’ attorneys maintained that they would file cases after breaking down the employees in small teams (Forbes, 2011).
There has been a previous incident of discrimination on the basis of sex which was ruled in favor of the employee of Wal-Mart. The lawsuit filed by EEOC claimed that Wal-Mart denied jobs to women for positions based on the warehouse from 1998 to 2005. This is despite the fact that women employers were equally or better qualified than the male counterparts. On the other hand, the retail store regularly hired males during this period (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2010). The store has to cough up $11.7 million for settle the suit for sex discrimination.
Wal-Mart is a successful name in the retail industry and has a well defined corporate culture. Despite this, individuals may assume that the content with which Wal-Mart deals with may unwittingly help in encouraging discrimination. Previously another case suit has been filed against the retail store and won by the concerned employees. The store has previously been accused of conducting discriminatory practices in the selection and hiring of African-American workers (The Wall Street Journal, 2009).
The above findings display that Wal-Mart has been continuously practicing sex discrimination in its stores. However, the company has framed its human resource policies in a manner which provides a lot of authority on superiors to fix the salary levels of individual employees. The store also prohibits employees to discuss their packages with each other and these may be the areas where discrimination is intentionally practiced against women. Experts have maintained that the corporate culture and policies of Wal-Mart are not clearly conveyed and this may cause supervisors to practice discrimination in the work place. Also the firm’s incapability to convey a consistent cultural message to all its employees may have resulted in discrimination on the basis of stereotypes and gender.
Recommendations for Wal-Mart
Wal-Mart has successfully organized operations across America. The store is in a position to challenge the misdemeanors of managers and accordingly levy the control function to speak against prejudices and stereotypes. This should be enforced in the store with immediate effect. New policies which adhere and protect the ethical code of conduct mentioned on the website should be formulated and implemented (Walmart, 2013).
Wal-Mart needs to ensure that women are hired in top managerial and management positions across the country. This will help in solving consistent issues with sex discrimination. The case study reveals that the retail giant has a substantially low level of female workers in managerial positions as compared with its competitors. Another recommendation for the firm is to ensure that equal and fair wages are paid to both men and women in the firm. The firm has previously discriminated by paying lesser wages to women as compared with men for the same tasks. The control function has to be exercised to ensure that supervisors do not conduct discriminatory practices on the basis of wages. This may be conducted by having a centralized human resource department which would be accountable to ensure that men and women are paid equal wages for similar work. The department should further work towards providing equal opportunities for training, career growth and development of employees in Wal-Mart. Human resource experts should conduct surprise visits to Wal-Mart stores interact with the employees, find out issues and resolve them. Also the organization staffing plan has to be modified to include both men and women to work together. The store should ensure that there are no men-centric and women-centric departments in the stores. The human resource department should ensure that the concerns of female employees are duly considered while transferring them from one store to another and the relocation policy should not favor discriminatory practices against female employees. The toll free number levied to voice the concerns of employees should not be used to harass personnel. The human resource department has to ensure that such calls accusing the company of discrimination against women should be strictly managed and accordingly arrangement should be carried out to ensure that women are not discriminated in the workplace. On the other hand, the human resource team can take suggestions from workers and suggest areas of improvement for employees in the store. This will help in the class of workers to be satisfied, engaged and motivated to perform.
Conclusion
The United States federal law prohibits any kind of workplace discrimination for about four decades. Despite this, there has been widespread instance of discrimination against women on the basis of wages and salaries as compared with men. The evidences presented in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case has provided alarming statistics which highlight certain discrimination issues which women employees in Wal-Mart has to confront.
The company should strive to maintain equal policies, pay and career growth opportunities to men and women. It should adhere to the recommendations and set up an active human resource department which efficiently manages to resolve all such complaints. This requires levying stringent control mechanisms and empowering the human resource department to take action against discrimination cases. This case is unique as it has effectively addressed a vice and has successfully highlighted such discriminatory practices which are conducted in most firms in the United States of America. It has triggered public debate and discussion and its effects may be echoed beyond the boundaries of the retail giant and may gradually bring an end to this vice.
References
Gordreau, J. (2011). Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court ruling in historic sex discrimination suit. Forbes. Retrieved May 06, 2013 from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/06/20/wal-mart-wins-supreme-court-ruling-in-historic-sex-discrimination-suit/
Shwiff, K. (2009). Wal-Mart settles discrimination lawsuit. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved May 07, 2013 from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123516971846636581.html
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2010). Walmart to pay more than $11.7 million to settle EEOC sex discrimination suit. Retrieved May 07, 2013 from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/3-1-10.cfm
Walmart. (2013). Statement of ethics. Retrieved May 07, 2013 from http://ethics.walmartstores.com/IntegrityIntheWorkplace/Nondiscrimination.aspx
Hart, M. (2007). Learning from Wal-Mart. Employee Rights and Employment Policy Journal, 10(355 – 394).
