Betty Dukes (on right) is the lead plaintiff in the sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, and she still loves WM:
[T]he lead plaintiff in the case was back on the job here Wednesday nattily dressed, quick with a smile and talking about how much she likes the company she's suing.I wonder if her lawyer told her to say that. (It's clear that everything she says, and that WM reps say, has been thoroughly debugged by their lawyers...All Betty Dukes wanted, the 10-year veteran of the company said, was "the opportunity to advance myself with Wal-Mart."
The article also contains this ahistorical nonsense:
The company has weathered a series of high-profile tests, most recently in Inglewood, where Wal-Mart went so far as to ask voters to allow a Supercenter in their community only to be rejected. At the same time, other communities in the state have actively courted the retailer.No, the most recent large battle for WM has been in Chicago, where they have succeeded in gaining permission to open up one store.
Note also that another original plaintiff, Stephanie Odle, thinks she has already won, now that WM has changed its promotion policies to promote more women regardless of merit.
Posted by Kevin on June, 24 2004 at 10:55 AM
| TrackBack
Lawyers Suck wrote:Wal-Mart has created more millionaires than Microsoft, yet people don't give the company the respect it deserves. Has anyone asked what is this woman's qualifications versus other applicant's? Is she qualified? Should Wal-Mart have the right to choose who it promotes?
Albeit plantiff's claims that they were passed over based on sex. The truth is that Wal-Mart hires and retains only the best management staff. Wal-Mart is a company of number crunchers and careful management.
Lawyers go from company to company looking to pillage like pirates. Maybe Wal-Mart should counter sue the lawyers for there callous accusations that hurt the employees, shareholders, and Wal-Mart consumer by sending the stock $5 lower.
Of course we know that the lawyers truly care because they will get nearly 60% of the settlement thanks to escrow. And we all remember how lawyers tried to charge Mircrosoft $25,000 per working hour.
Government needs to stop these lawyers by passing limited liability laws that resrict awards only to potential compensation lost for the jobs that the people would get.
That way we would not be talking about Wal-Mart versus Pirates, but rather America's largest company buying Metro Ag, or Possibly Carrefour.
In the end the employees, shareholders, and consumer lose.
-- June 29, 2004 10:53 PM ∞
R Rodriquez wrote:Well thank goodness for freedom of speech or we would all be in trouble. Well I'am a manger at wal-mart and I love my company. But I even myself have been treated and harrased by my store manager. It is peolple like that that give our company a bad name. All companies have ther bad apples and unfortunatly they slip through the barrel and end up with us and ruin our carreers out of vengence so they do need sued. Most lawyers want more than five people in a case so it is more difficult to get them to support one person. I Really would like to slam it to a couple of mangers I know they don't need to be im my company at all and trying to get them removed is like fighting congress. So much for that. Women should not be harrassed and It is obvious it is happening. Wal-mart basis is beliefs on repect for the individual but in the court of law only sexual harrasment and gender is used in a court case. Anyone else have any more info on defending our selves against such terrible store managers? Let me know.
-- July 7, 2004 01:57 AM ∞
