Labor Discrimination - Essay Example

? Number] Comparison of Labour Discrimination Cases – Introduction Labour discrimination refers to the discriminating behaviour practices within the process of hiring, promoting, assignment and allocation of job responsibilities and compensation to the employees (Devah, p54). There are several types of harassment also included in labour discrimination like sexual harassment, cultural harassment and wages discrimination etc. (Michael et al, p54) There have been several jurisdiction implemented to prohibit different types of labour discrimination and the victims have been given the right to file lawsuit against the employers in case of encountering discrimination at work place(Ingram, et al, p92). Labour discrimination could occur intentionally or intentionally due to prejudice or ignorance. The discrimination of labour has been evolved as an important and serious area of concern for the business related people, workers and general people because all over the world it is common to see filing of lawsuits against major companies of the world on the charges of labour discrimination (Susan et al, p28). If the lawsuits are filed against well-known companies then the cases often turn sensational and gain the attention of the community to look for the outcome of the case. Several cases of labour discrimination have been ended with multimillion dollar settlement (Tom and Lambiase, p83). The class actions taken against the companies are usually supported and favoured by the people because they think that decisions in favour of labour put pressure upon the employers to change their practice and make it justified and fair with the workforce (Susan et al, p28). The paper discusses two lawsuits filed against popular American companies Abercrombie & Fitch and Wall Mark on the allegation of labour discrimination. These two cases were widely followed by people because they involved popular retail brands of the country. These cases ended up with different conclusion and the accused companies are given different decisions. Abercrombie & Fitch was ordered to pay $50 million compensate the plaintiffs however, the case of Wal-Mart was blocked by the Supreme Court due to lack of sufficient evidences about the existence of discriminating labour practice by the management of Wal-Mart. The decision of Abercrombie & Fitch encouraged the class workers to raise voice for their due rights however, the case of Wal-Mart clarifies that the lawsuit must be filed with complete preparation and practice so that the court become able to make a justified decision. These two important lawsuits of the U.S. business world are discussed below and their comparative analysis has also been conducted to illustrate the practical implications of these decisions to the business world and labour management practice. Abercrombie & Fitch Lawsuit Abercrombie & Fitch is a popular American retailer company that main deals with the casual wean for the consumers age group 18-22. It also operates three other offshoot brands of children wear and other fashion wear. The company has established around 300 locations across US and the process of international expansion is also on its way. The company employs over 22,000 workers in over 700 stores. Most of the employees are college age adults of different sex, race and ethnic groups (Jane, p2). The case was filed by the employees of the company who charged it for discrimination of the work force at workplace. The case against Abercrombie & Fitch was settled on the 14th of April 2005 when Judge Susan Illston of U.S. District Court for the Northern district of California finally approved the settlement of case Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch. The court required Abercrombie & Fitch to pay $40 million to several plaintiffs that were mostly females and others belonged to minority community (Shiffer et al, p7). After the settlement of the case the company established settlement fund to distribute the amount among the workers. The plaintiffs were sent the award checks in December 2005. There were over ten thousand class members found with valid claims according to the Court settlement order. The checks were ranging from hundred dollars to thousand dollars according the damages caused to the members and their contributions to the case prosecution process (Tom and Lambiase, p83). The company was also directed to pay the fee to the attorneys and cost associated with the monitoring of the compliance at the time of Consent Decree came into effect. This period was almost 4 to 6 years long from the final approval of the settlement and the progress of the company towards the decree. In this account the amount of $10 million was paid by the company (Ariana, p2). The court also directed the company to formulate and implement adequate policies and strategies for the promotion of workforce diversity and to avoid further cases of race and gender based discrimination at the workplace. It was decided that a monitor will carry on the evaluation of the company labour practice to assure that the management is complying with the provisions set in the consent decree. The court restricted the company to set up goals in form of benchmarks to guide the process of hiring and promotion of women and workers belonging to different races like Latino, African Americans and Asian Americans (Greenhouse, p92). The court also stresses upon the publication of advertisement for available position giving equal opportunities to both genders and all minorities. The company was also required to hire officer and VC for better management of diversity at the firm and 24 recruiters to look at the matters of employment of women and minority workers. The court also necessitated the Diversity training and Equal Employment Opportunity trainer for all the employers having the authorities of hiring people in the firm. The marketing material should also be designed in a way that it reflects the company policy regarding workforce diversity and give sense of belongingness to the women and different ethnic groups (Staff, p75). The case stands as an example of standing against the workplace discrimination of the workforce. The decision of the court also encourages the labour facing discrimination at workplace that they should stand up for their rights and there is adequate and fair system of justice to resolve their issues and address their concerns. The case also unfolds the existence of large scale labour discrimination within the retail sector and warns other companies to formulate adequate rules, regulations and system to assure that all the workers are provided with equal employment opportunities, promotion and compensation regardless of their gender and ethnic identities. The decision of the case also acts as warning sign to the widespread labour discrimination practice in different sectors (Greenhouse, p92). Wall Mart Case Wal-Mart in a U.S based Multinational Corporation that runs the chain of departmental stores with large discount and warehouse stores. It is the 18th largest public corporation of the world. Wal-Mart employs over 2 million people in its different stores and has been regarded as the biggest private employer of the world. Wal-Mart runs 8,500 stores in 15 different countries of the world. The biggest employer of the world faces high criticism and pressure when the female workers employed by Wal-Mart files lawsuit against the company on the allegation of labour discrimination (Lichtenstein, p43). The case filed against Wal-Mart has been regarded as the largest sex discrimination lawsuit files in United States. The court gave the decision in favour of Wal-Mart after which the class action suits filed against other corporation were also affected and experts saw several difficulties raised from this decision for the workers of large scale companies facing the problem of labour discrimination (Mark, p58). The class suit against Wal-Mart included almost 1.5 million present and former workers employed by Wal-Mart. The court decided that the females filed the case against the company have not successfully proved that they have faced discrimination at workplace due to the common policy of discrimination implemented by the company. The court favoured Wal-Mart because according to the court that the respondents failed to convince the court through valid proofs that there is discriminating practice of pay and promotion within the company on the basis of gender difference. The class action suit is found valid if the plaintiff could prove the existence of common question regarding the discrimination of labour in any of the practice from pay, work allocation, working hours and promotion and compensation etc. In this case, there were no evidences presented in front of the court to evidence the existence of this discrimination by the management of Wal-Mart (Lichtenstein, p43). The case was also source of pressure and concern for the Wal-Mart because of the court would have make the decision in favour of the female workers than the company had to pay billions of dollars to compensate the damages claimed by 1.6 million female workers employed at Wal-Mart. The 9th U.S. Circuit court of Appeals set in San Francisco rules in favour of the employees but after Wal-Mart appeal Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit and the company got great relief from the decision. The lawsuit possessed great importance for the corporate world and people were highly concerned about the result of the case. Some corporates facing the same kind of lawsuits from their female workers supported Wal-Mart by filing brief in the case (Mark, p58). They highly applauded the decision and expressed that the decision of the court is an important victory for the Wal-Mart as well as for the other large scale companies operating in United States (Vance and Scott, p99). The decision of the court also initiated a heated debate because some experts held the view that the female workers should be given more change to prove them in the court so that the practice of labour discrimination on gender basis could be stop. Some of the court’s female justices including Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed their concerns regarding the decision that there were many evidences that indicate the existence of problem at Wal-Mart because 70percent of hourly job has been performed by the female workers but they have representation of just 33percent in the management departments. However, despite this fact the women failed to present their stance in front of the court effectively due to which the case was blocked by the Supreme Court (Ingram, et al, p92). The attorney of the plaintiff said that the decision has added to the difficulties of the workers facing problems at workplace because now they have to face even more challenges and tough situation. However, it is also an important point to consider that the court has not decided that Wal-Mart is not involved in the labour discrimination practice but it has pointed out towards lack of evidences against Wal-Mart. The court also directed the complaining women that they could register their complaints against the company for any further legal action against the company. The case was not complying with the criteria set forth by the court for class action due to which it was blocked (Fishman, p176). The case against Wal-Mart was initiated in 2000. Betty Dukes, a 54 years old employee of Wal-Mart in California filed complaint that she has been facing sex discrimination by her employer. She claimed that she has been working for Wal-Mart for several years and over the last 6 years she has received excellent reviews for her hard and dedicated work for the company. However, despite this fact the management refused to include her in the training that is meant to advance the employees at higher salaries and better working position. On the other hand, Wal-Mart said that Dukes has been warned for coming back late from the lunch break due to which she also has clash with a female supervisor at the company and eventually she is filing the case on the charges of sex discrimination (Mark, p58). The lawsuit began in June 2001 in which the plaintiff revealed that she is representing 1.6 million female workers of Wal-Mart currently and previously employed by the company since 1998. Justice Martin Jenkins decided gives class certification to the plaintiff however Wal-Mart went to the Supreme Court and filed appeal against the decision that was approved by the court. The women decided that they will file the law suit again after making necessary changes in the case however, currently the case has been came to an end with the decision in favour of the employer (Fishman, p176). Comparative Analysis The lawsuits against Abercrombie & Fitch and Wal-Mart on the charges of labour discrimination at workplace possess great importance for the employees and employers because the decisions of these cases have affected the labour practice of the companies within the country. It is unveiled that the case of Abercrombie & Fitch was files properly with strong evidences and proofs due to which the court was convinced to make decision in favour of the employees as they have proved discrimination against them in the basis of gender and ethnic identified. In Wal-Mart case however, the company gets the advantage of law that decides that there are no proper evidences of labour discrimination through a common policy. The existence of lawsuits against the employers and the decisions of the courts in favour of the employees show that there is enough protection given to the workforce in the law and if they become able to prove the unfair attitude and policies of their employers then they could seek justice from the court and the employers could get punishment and penalties for the damages caused to the employees like in the case of Abercrombie & Fitch, the employees get money for the damages caused by the gender and racial biased policies of the company. The decision of the court in case of Abercrombie & Fitch is a positive sign for the people working in different sectors because such decisions make employers more conscious and concerned about their labour practice. The employees also get confidence that they could be able to complain against any biasness and unfair treatment at workplace to the court and could expect that they will get compensation for their damages caused by the firm. Wal-Mart case was blocked by the Supreme Court but still it is point of worry to the company that the cases of labour discrimination do occur within the company. In order to avoid the possibilities of further cases they have to revise their labour policies so that the employees would gain confidence in the management and could participate in the business of the firm with full dedication and belongingness. The comparison of these cases affirms that there is great awareness among the workers regarding safeguarding their rights. The workers are widely concerned about their rights and know that they can consult the courts in case of any discriminating labour practice. These cases also indicate that the large scale companies are commonly involved in the discriminating labour practice and the workers are widely treated biasedly due to weak gender and race. The expansion of businesses of different large scale companies has also affected their labour practice and many companies operating in US are not truly complying with the labour acts that must be condemn and reported through lawsuits so that the trend of labour discrimination could be stopped and workers would be treated regardless of their gender and race purely on the basis of their qualification and skills. Top of Form Bottom of Form Work Cited Chang, Jane. "The Ab in Abercrombie". Los Angeles Times, 2006. Retrieved online from http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/10/magazine/tm-abercrombie37 Reichert, Tom and Jacqueline Lambiase. Sex in Consumer Culture. London: Routledge. 2005 Greenhouse, Steven. "Abercrombie & Fitch Bias Case Is Settled". The New York Times, 2004 Staff. "Woman Wins Clothes Store Tribunal". BBC News, 2009. Retrieved online from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News Shiffer, James Eli; Friedman, Jane. "Girl: I Was Treated Like a 'Misfit' at Abercrombie & Fitch". Star Tribune, 2009. http://www.startribune.com/local/south/57918152.html Bianchi, Ariana. Abercrombie & Fitch – A Model of Employment Discrimination? .http://www.thehumanequation.com/en/news_rss/articles/2005/Abercrombie_Fitch_Model_of_Employment_Discrimination.aspx Moller, Mark (Summer 2007). "The Anti- Constitutional Culture of Class Action Law", Regulation. pp. 50–58. Charles Fishman. The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and How It's Transforming the American Economy, 2006 Paul Ingram, Lori Qingyuan Yue, and Hayagreeva Rao. "Trouble in Store: Probes, Protests, and Store Openings by Wal?Mart, 1998–2007," American Journal of Sociology, July 2010, Vol. 116, No. 1: p 53–92. Nelson Lichtenstein. The Retail Revolution: How Wal-Mart Created a Brave New World of Business, 2009 Sandra Stringer Vance and Roy V. Scott. Wal-Mart: A History of Sam Walton's Retail Phenomenon, Twayne's Evolution of Modern Business Series, 1997 Pager, Devah. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass Incarceration. University of Chicago Press, 2009 Papa, Michael J., Tom D. Daniels, Barry K. Spiker. Organizational Communication: Perspectives and Trends, London: SAGE, 2000 Trentham, Susan, Laurie Larwood. "Gender Discrimination and the Workplace: An Examination of Rational Bias Theory". Sex Roles 38 (112): 1–28, 1998 Read More