Sex Discrimination at Walmart
Summary
Betty Dukes was hired in May 1994 as a part-time cashier at Wal-Mart in Pitsburg, California. Within a year she became a full-time employee and two years later she was promoted to Customer Service Manager. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Dukes complained to the District Manager about discriminatory treatment from the head of her dept. and the store manager. After complaining, she was written up for a series of rules violations that were seldom enforced.
In Aug. 1999 she was demoted back to cashier and her hours and wages were reduced. Despite the retaliation Ms. Dukes aspired to higher positions but each time the open position was filled without being posted, usually with a man.
On June 19, 2001, Dukes et al. filed a suit against Wal-Mart for discriminating against them as women and all female employees during the previous five years. The evidence that Wal-Mart as a company was guilty of sex discrimination was based largely on statistical analysis of personnel data. The following issues were highlighted; (i) The suit alleged that female employees in Wal-Mart stores were less likely than men to be promoted. (ii) When they were promoted advancements came slowly and their pay lagged behind that of men. (iii) Promotion opportunities were not usually made known and open positions were often filled with employees previously identified and groomed by store managers.
Wal-Mart’s defense was that the statistical disparities were caused by the company’s pay and promotion practices as store managers were authorized to use their discretion when making decisions which led them to unconscious bias (stereotyping and in-group favoritism) with regards to the pay and promotions. Additionally, it was said that women were not interested in and/or not qualified for the higher paying jobs.
Ethical Views
Utilitarian Argument
The Utilitarianism holds that an action is judged as right, good or wrong on the basis of its consequences. With regards to discrimination,
Betty Dukes was hired in May 1994 as a part-time cashier at Wal-Mart in Pitsburg, California. Within a year she became a full-time employee and two years later she was promoted to Customer Service Manager. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Dukes complained to the District Manager about discriminatory treatment from the head of her dept. and the store manager. After complaining, she was written up for a series of rules violations that were seldom enforced.
In Aug. 1999 she was demoted back to cashier and her hours and wages were reduced. Despite the retaliation Ms. Dukes aspired to higher positions but each time the open position was filled without being posted, usually with a man.
On June 19, 2001, Dukes et al. filed a suit against Wal-Mart for discriminating against them as women and all female employees during the previous five years. The evidence that Wal-Mart as a company was guilty of sex discrimination was based largely on statistical analysis of personnel data. The following issues were highlighted; (i) The suit alleged that female employees in Wal-Mart stores were less likely than men to be promoted. (ii) When they were promoted advancements came slowly and their pay lagged behind that of men. (iii) Promotion opportunities were not usually made known and open positions were often filled with employees previously identified and groomed by store managers.
Wal-Mart’s defense was that the statistical disparities were caused by the company’s pay and promotion practices as store managers were authorized to use their discretion when making decisions which led them to unconscious bias (stereotyping and in-group favoritism) with regards to the pay and promotions. Additionally, it was said that women were not interested in and/or not qualified for the higher paying jobs.
Ethical Views
Utilitarian Argument
The Utilitarianism holds that an action is judged as right, good or wrong on the basis of its consequences. With regards to discrimination,