Financial impact of a lawsuit on Wal-Mart
Companies as big as Wal-Mart have been known to plan in advance against any kind of lawsuits that it can face. It is believed that Wal-Mart plans ahead for the day it will pay out a billion dollar payout. This is intended to reduce the impact on share-holders in the event of a law suit. Should the billion dollar law suit result in a pay-out, the impact may show up in earnings as a loss of five cents per share.
However, this has resulted in a lot of criticism from employees and financial experts who believe that instead of making sure that its female employees are treated equally and all employees are paid for their overtime hours, Wal-Mart prefers to keep stocks of money to pay for its legal short comings.
This may paint the image that Wal-Mart may not succumb to any real economic pressure when faced with a multi-billion dollar law suit. However, the risk of having tens of billions of dollars in liability is still too great of a deal for the company (Sage & Stempel, April 27th 2010).
Moral complaints and justification of the complaints
The female employees complained of sexual discrimination from the store managers. Evidence showed that female employees were less likely to be given a promotion unlike their male counterparts. They also complained of sexual discrimination. For instance, Lois Robinson in 1986 complained of the sexually explicit pictures posted by her male counter parts and their derogatory sexist remarks.
She also found the sign “Men Only” on the ship fitter’s container to be offensive. The cases are justified because evidence shows that 5.0 percent of men had been given promotions as compared to women. Women were also not encouraged to apply for vacancies in higher positions while transfer to other stores was assigned disproportionately to the women.
Women also had a lesser pay as compared to men even though they both held the same positions. Women that complained of being discriminated against faced retaliation from their managers and as a result were either demoted or lost eligibility for any promotions.
On the other hand, the complaints may not be justified as research has shown that socialization has set standards for women and women have embraced these standards. For example, women may work in the kitchen ware department or the clothing department out of preference and not because the store discriminates them based on gender roles.
Secondly, research shows that fewer women preferred to take up managerial positions as compared to men. Between 1999 and 2002, 12 percent of applicants seeking promotions were women and 17 percent of the vacancies were offered to them. Therefore, it was concluded that the low percentage of women in managerial positions was not due to discrimination but was due to their reluctance to accept them.
Steps to correct the discrepancies
As a company, Wal-Mart should be able to have experts put in place that deal with discrimination in the workplace. The law provides acts and rights that protect male and female employees from discrimination and prevents employers from taking any unfavorable action on the basis of gender.
Wal-Mart should therefore attempt to correct any discrepancies by ensuring that both men and women are given equal opportunities to apply for any vacant positions provided that qualification of the job is properly administered to both genders. Employees should be allowed to work in the company provided they abide by the terms and conditions as stated in the employment contract.
In addition, the company should provide good working conditions and provide equal employment opportunities for its employees. This is to mean that all employees should be eligible for promotion, retention and should be assigned the same job responsibilities irrespective of their gender (Los Angeles Legal Services, 2010).
Any condition, behavior or action that attacks an employee because of their gender should be corrected immediately so as that the performance of the employee may not be affected.
This may be done by setting up clear work place policies that prohibit any kind of discrimination in the work place and the set up proper communication channels that employees can go through should they feel they are being discriminated against.
If both men and women are working in the same position, then it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure that they are paid equal wages and salaries (Los Angeles Legal Services, 2010).
Wal-Mart should take affirmative action in promotion of female employees. This is important because it will reflect on the ethical make-up of the company in the area in which it is located. Furthermore, it will provide a competitive advantage because the employer might find women workers with better skills and better equipped with knowledge that can work to the company’s advantage.
On the other hand, this may cause resentment among the employees because they may feel that they were only promoted based on their gender and not based on their skills or qualification for the job (Johnson, 2011). An affirmative action plan program should be designed in such a way that female employees are equipped with proper skills and knowledge on job promotions.
The employer should provide training for female employees to ensure that they gain this knowledge and skills. Not only will this encourage female employees to apply for higher paying positions, but it will boost their confidence and improve their work performance.
Conclusion
The women deserve to win their law suit should there be enough evidence to prove that indeed there was some sort of discrimination against them. Not only will this correct any injustices that the women have undergone, but it will give them hope for fair treatment should they choose to continue working in the company or elsewhere.
References
Johnson, W. (2011). Pros and Cons of an Affirmative Workplace. Web.
Los Angeles Legal Services (2010). How to Avoid Gender Discrimination in the Workplace. Web.
Sage, A. & Stempel, J. (2010). Lawsuit exposes Wal-Mart to billions in potential damages. Web.