It charged Wal-Mart with discriminating against women in promotions, pay, and job assignments in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case started in 2000, when a 54-year-old Wal-Mart worker in California named Betty Dukes filed a s*x discrimination claim against her employer. Dukes claims that, despite six years of hard work and excellent performance reviews, she was denied
the training she needed to advance to a higher salaried position. Wal-Mart's position is that Dukes clashed with a female Wal-Mart supervisor and was disciplined for admittedly returning late from lunch breaks. In June 2001, the lawsuit began in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs seek to represent 1.6 million women, including all those who work or have previously worked in a Wal-Mart store since December 26, 1998. In June 2004, the federal district judge, Martin Jenkins, ruled in favor of class certification under FRCP 23(b)(2). Wal-Mart appealed the decision. In 2004, journalist Liza Featherstone published a book about the case, Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers' Rights at Wal-Mart in which she contends that Wal-Mart's success is based not only on its inexpensive merchandise or its popularity but also on bad labor practices, a charge she repeated in an article about the case for The Nation. Featherstone compared Dukes to Rosa Parks. Source
Description above from the Wikipedia article Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., licensed under CC-BY-SA full list of contributors here. Community Pages are not affiliated with, or endorsed by, anyone associated with the topic.