Across the Pond
What does Wal-Mart - the giant American supermarket chain - have in common with employers in Scotland?
Well the answer is that American employers - just like employers over here - are quite prepared to use any tactics to frustrate and, if possible, prevent a proper hearing of workers' equal pay claims.
Here's an extract of a recent article from the New York Times which explains the background.
New York Times
"The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion.
The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.
The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action.
The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability, as well as other claims.
If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case. Arguments in the case are likely to be heard this spring with a decision expected by the end of June.
Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 different stores in 170 job classifications, cannot possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate."
Wal-Mart's argument is that employees working in diverse and different locations - should not be able to compare their pay and conditions - one to another.
Where have we heard that before?
Wal-Mart is also using its access to unlimited funds to hire expensive lawyers - with the sole purpose of frustrating the process - instead of dealing with the real issue: does pay discrimination really exist in the workplace?
Ring any bells with anyone?
Well the answer is that American employers - just like employers over here - are quite prepared to use any tactics to frustrate and, if possible, prevent a proper hearing of workers' equal pay claims.
Here's an extract of a recent article from the New York Times which explains the background.
New York Times
"The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal in the biggest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history, one claiming that Wal-Mart discriminated against hundreds of thousands of women in pay and promotion.
The lawsuit seeks back pay that could amount to billions of dollars.
The question before the court is not whether there was discrimination but rather whether the claims by the individual employees may be combined as a class action.
The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability, as well as other claims.
If nothing else, many pending class actions will slow or stop while litigants and courts await the decision in the case. Arguments in the case are likely to be heard this spring with a decision expected by the end of June.
Wal-Mart, which says its policies expressly bar discrimination and promote diversity, said the plaintiffs, who worked in 3,400 different stores in 170 job classifications, cannot possibly have enough in common to make class-action treatment appropriate."
Wal-Mart's argument is that employees working in diverse and different locations - should not be able to compare their pay and conditions - one to another.
Where have we heard that before?
Wal-Mart is also using its access to unlimited funds to hire expensive lawyers - with the sole purpose of frustrating the process - instead of dealing with the real issue: does pay discrimination really exist in the workplace?
Ring any bells with anyone?
