Policies and Practices at Wal-Mart Essay

Think about Wal-Mart and deem about the badgest and around successful chain of depart handst stores in the unite States. Think about Wal-Mart and think about a multi-billion dollar comp whatever which just continues to expand. Now think about puddleing for this corporation. Initially you might think about the great opportunity and promise to work for a solid company. But, if you are not a white staminate, think again. Wal-Mart gets sued a lot. Back in 2002, Wal-Mart received over six thousand lawsuits (Daniels, 2003). directly the company is facing the largest civil rights class meet lawsuit, the Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Inc. The Dukes vs. Wal-Mart Inc is a agitate- discrepancy lawsuit filed by Ms. Betty Dukes. According to Ms. Dukes, her employer denied her the vista of progressing to the upper echelon of the company she works for. Now what we have before us is an ongoing away circus amid 2 million women who are currently on the craft(p) or used to work at Wal-Mart and the Wal-Mart company. The unite States government has an agency which prosecutes any work connect discrimination act. It is called the impact Employment contingency cathexis or EEOC. EEOC was established to ensure that every psyche has an equal opportunity to be hired and active and that no form of discrimination will be do against them. EEOC laws protect the employees as early as during the application stage. As I have verbalise above, it is just normal for Wal-Mart to be sued a lot. The cerebrate is maybe because discriminatory practices exist here. Let us study what the law states and compare it with what is really going on inside Wal-Mart. call heptad of the well-mannered Rights dissemble of 1964 Title VII of the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 commonly known as Title VII protects employees at being discriminated based on race, color, religion, land up or national origin. If an employer employs fifteen or more(prenominal) individuals, that company covered by Title VII. It is not only intentional discriminations that is prohibited but any practice which has the effect of discriminating against individuals is under Title VII (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). The U.S. EEOC is in charge of enforcing this law. The question now is what is the practice in Wal-Mart. Is this law enforced strictly or is Wal-Mart irrespective this act? Back to Ms. Dukes, she filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart because she claims that Wal-Mart did not gave her a chance to move to the next higher(prenominal) job position because she is a feminine (Pikul, 2004). With what Ms. Dukes is claiming, this is clearly showing that sex-discrimination is widespread at Wal-Mart and this is definitely unacceptable. Since at that place are many early(a) complaints just bid this, the court has allowed the largest class action discrimination boldness against Wal-Mart.Equal Pay Act Under the Equal Pay Act, there should be no inequality in wage based on the sex of the em ployee. Men and women who basically have the same job position and skill level should be paying(a) equally. This act further states that employers cannot reduce wages of each sex for the sake of equalizing the wage between men and women (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004). In a Sams Club in riverside California, Ms. Stephane Odle working as an champion manager represent a W-2 form lying around the office. The W-2 was own by her male college which also happens to be an assistant manager just like her. She discovered that her male counterpart was earning some thousand of dollars more than her (Daniels, 2003). Again, other act of dishonesty on the part of Wal-Mart. The company do a fool out of Ms. Odle and made a mockery of the act enforced by the EEOC.Pregnancy discrimination Act of 1978The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 is aimed to protect women from discrimination they may fix on the basis of pregnancy and childbirth. Women who are meaning(a) or feelin g any related conditions should be treated the same way as other regular applicants or employees (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2004).Another act violated by Wal-Mart in which a settlement has been made. In November 1991, a female applicant was denied to be hired because she was pregnant at that time. The EEOC on behalf of Miss Jamey Stern filed a fibre against Wal-Mart. The settlement cost Wal-Mart $200,000 in damages done to Ms. Stern.There is no smoke if there isnt any fire. Wal-Mart is certainly guilty of discrimination on their female workers and the minority. They are not only sinful to their workers but also to what the law states. The sheer numerate of lawsuits being filed against Wal-Mart clearly shows that this company has a big problem. It is never too late for the company to comprise its wrong doings against their employees. Eradication of discrimination at work is a process that is why it is insistent that they act now. Instead of being the leaders in discrimination, they should set an example to all other companies, capacious or small, that there is no place for discrimination in the work place.ReferencesDaniels, C. (2003, July 21). Women vs. Wal-Mart. How the retailer reconcile its famous culture with the anger of these female workers? Retrieved March 11, 2007 from http//money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2003/07/21/346130/index.htmPikul, C. (2004, November 22). Women vs. Wal-Mart. Retrieved March 14, 2008 from http//dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2004/11/22/wal_mart/U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2004). APA stylus Electronic references. Retrieved March 12, 2008, from http//www.eeoc.gov