When six females filed a class action discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart in 2004, they were not just looking out for their own interests; they were in fact standing up for 1.6 million other women who worked for – and were allegedly treated unfairly by – Wal-Mart after December 26, 1998.
             The suit alleges that Wal-Mart in effect has lived under a corporate management culture that discriminates against female employees in matters of pay, promotions, training for management positions, and job assignments. The suit was filed in U.S. District Court, and the judge ruled that the women could ask for back pay and compensation for those 1.6 million women.
             This paper points to the facts of the case, many of which have been presented cogently and graphically by a professor from the University of California at Hayward, Richard Drogin. Using files and data from Wal-Mart, Drogin has painted a picture of institutional discrimination that cries out for a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
             For example, Drogin shows that only 33 percent of salaried managers are women, and that male hourly workers earn an average of $18,609 a year, while female hourly employees earn only $17,498. At the higher corporate levels, men make far more than women, Drogin demonstrated; a male regional VP earns an average of $419,435, while a female in the same position earns just $279,772 annually. Interestingly, only 10.3% of the "regional VPs" are female, which is not an indication of a lack of skills or talent on the part of women, but rather is based on institutional discrimination against women at Wal-Mart.
             The numbers don't lie: women hired for hourly jobs in 1996 earned 35 cents less an hour than men; by 2001, the difference grew, as women on hourly wages earned $1.16 less an hour than men. Women received 2,891 fewer promotions than men in the Support Manager position, and the list of injustice for women goes on and on.
             The st...