Wal-Mart is probably the largest private employer in the United States of America. Over the years it has been accused of discrimination in selection, recruitment, and employment of suitable applicants. Lawsuits have been filed against Wal-Mart by employees and other lobbyists groups demanding the end of discrimination.
According to the case file Wal-Mart is accused of violating the Equal Employment Opportunity laws. According to the laws every body has equal employment opportunity regardless of their gender, sex, National origin, religion, color and physical disability among many others. From the case files employees have been discriminated against because of their color, race and gender.
For example, it is evident that for more than seven years blacks had been discriminated because of their color and denied employment as truck drivers. Because of this a lawsuit was filed against Wal-Mart and they promised to hire the applicants and employee them. This case on the drivers other than violating equal employment based on color, it can also be seen as discrimination against the minorities.
Wal-Mart also discriminated job applicants on the basis of gender. It is clear from the case file that female job applicants were turned down for jobs in the distribution centers on grounds that they were female and they were not needed. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the allegations were true and a verdict was reached that concluded that there was a statistical pattern that showed male employees being hired more than women.
To make the case more valid a female applicant who had been turned down in Wal-Mart was employed for the same job position in a different company. The above cases are pure evidences of discrimination at the work place on the basis of gender, color and race (minorities). As a result, the company agreed to pay the plaintiff a certain amount and promised to employee more women and the minority groups.
Wal-Mart stores could have avoided the charges by following the law and provisions in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act. By following the provisions there would be no allegations and lawsuits filed against. Turning down male applicants because they are black is clear race and color discrimination that could have been avoided through employing them in a statistically and consistent manner.
On the case of against women, the company could have specified that men were required because of the type of the job in the warehouse. This would not have attracted women applicants in the first place thus having no case. It would also have employed women in a statistically significant ways such that no loop holes in employment pattern were availed. By setting discrimination policies during the inception of the company would have eliminated the discrimination lawsuits.
This is because discrimination would not have been present in the first place, thus avoiding it. Lastly the utterances by one of the recruiters that women are not needed would have stopped the issue of discrimination. This is because if policies on discrimination had been established in Wal-Mart Company that recruiter could not have uttered those words.
Wal-Mart is faced with the challenges of diversifying its top management team and discrimination charges ending. The two challenges are difficult but the one on discrimination seems to be more difficult to face.
After numerous charges have been filed against to the law courts on issues of discrimination on Wal-Mart, individuals, lobbyists groups and the Wal-Mart’s watch and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have been on fore front in fighting for the end of discrimination.
An article by the Reuters dated June 21, 2011 has showed that, although Wal-Mart had won a case that was filed against by based on class action status, people have vowed to continue filling charges.
This is a challenge because the cases will not be ending and more charges may be filled. Reuters (June 11, 2011) note that the lawyers representing plaintiff warned that it could be possible for Wal-Mart to face lengthier litigation process in different courtrooms. With no doubt, Wal-Mart is to be faced with more lawsuits because the Equal Employment Opportunity commission has showed support on the workers of Wal-Mart and other retail stores.
According to the case files the verdict of the EEOC concluded that there was a trend of discrimination meaning that the problem has been there. It is also clear that the challenge of discrimination is embedded in the system and management of Wal-Mart. To end the instances of discrimination charges the management has to adapt a strategy that recognizes the EEOA. If this is not adopted then the challenges of court battles on discrimination will not end.
It seems that the top management of the Wal-Mart’s company is male dominated with less women managers, minority groups, and the disabled. With only a fourth of the top managers being managers, then problems of discrimination are less likely to end.
In my opinion, diversification of the Wal-Mart’s Executives and managers has high probability of avoiding instances of discrimination. Although the company has set up a women committee to come up with strategies of bringing women managers and executives, more has to be done. With women in top ranks, it would be easy to employ women in the company.
This is because women will be more vocal and be involved in selection and recruitment process of employees. They can champion for the women to have the same chances and opportunities as male applicants. In another instance having the disabled, minorities, people of different color and race in the management, it would be possible to avoid discrimination because employees are well represented.
The diversified management would have one voice and has the likelihood of representing all the employees in the work place. Diversification of executives in the Wal-Mart management would also ensure diversification among the employees at lower management levels and subordinates. This would eliminate any discrimination instance because all employees are well presented.
In conclusion, the Wal-Mart violated the laws and provisions that are under the Equal Employment Opportunity that protects the employees and applicants from any instances of discrimination either based on gender, race, color, physical disability among others.
The charges filed against by the employees could have been avoided if the company had policies that prohibited discriminations, followed the provisions and laws provided in the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and employed the employees in first place or stating categorically that the positions available were male jobs.
Between the challenges of discrimination and diversification of executives, the latter is the greatest problem because a lot of lawsuits have been laid so far. It is also clear that the issue has not been well addressed. Diversification of employees can avoid discrimination in the sense that, all people regardless of their color, physical ability, race, and gender would be represented in the workplace and applicants have a chance of getting a job.
Reuters. Wal-Mart wins Supreme Court sex-bias ruling. 21 Jun. 2011. Web. 7 Jul. 2011. < http://www.interaksyon.com/article/6355/wal-mart-wins-supreme-court-sex-bias-ruling>