Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Equality, diversity and inclusionLatest NewsEqual pay

Wal-Mart faces $11bn bill in equality battle

by Personnel Today 13 Feb 2007
by Personnel Today 13 Feb 2007

The biggest sexual discrimination case in US history advanced against Wal-Mart last week when a top court ruled that more than 1.6 million women could join a class-action law suit.

Legal experts have estimated that Wal-Mart’s liability in the case could run as high as $11bn (£5.5bn) and involve as many as two million women who have worked for the retail giant since 1998.

The suit claims female employees were discriminated against in pay and bypassed for promotion, something strongly denied by the company.

US district judge Martin Jenkins ruled that lawyers for the women had enough anecdotal evidence to warrant a class-action trial. He argued that it was “impractical” to have individual hearings for each plaintiff, and planned to use a statistical formula to compensate each of the women.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Wal-Mart had argued that granting the lawsuit class-action status was inappropriate because its 3,400 US stores operated as individual businesses, and issues of pay and promotion were decided on a local basis.

But David Nassar, executive director of campaign group Wal-Mart Watch, said: “Despite Wal-Mart’s efforts to stonewall, delay and obfuscate, today’s judgment brings us miles closer to justice and vindication for two million victims of the company’s immoral and illegal gender discrimination.” 

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Councils search for ways to borrow money to avert equal pay crisis
next post
Survey reveals the recipe for a happy workforce

You may also like

Doctors vote for return to strike action

8 Jul 2025

‘Frustrating’ that NHS Plan has overlooked OH, warns...

8 Jul 2025

Employment Rights Bill set to ban employer NDAs

8 Jul 2025

Young people unprepared for world of work, says...

8 Jul 2025

Empower and engage for the future: A revolution...

7 Jul 2025

Bereavement leave to extend to miscarriages before 24...

7 Jul 2025

One in seven ‘revenge quit’ in latest employee...

7 Jul 2025

Skills shortfall in construction threatens housing target

4 Jul 2025

Company director wins £15k after being told to...

4 Jul 2025

MPs demand Home Office tightens visas to protect...

4 Jul 2025

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+