It was good news for the American supermarket Wal-Mart, but very bad for its female employees. A few weeks ago, the US Supreme Court turned down the case of gender discrimination in which five women accused the company of having a chauvinist corporate policy. The case, which could have completely changed the course of labour relationships in United States, affected more than 1.5 million women working in more than 3,400 stores that Wal-Mart has around the world. On the other hand, a negative ruling would have spelt disaster for the corporation. The women, who put the company on the ropes, knew that suing the biggest retailer in the world was not going to be an easy task. They were clear about the fact that their struggle was going to be a “David against Goliath” one, said Jocelyn Larkin, one of the lawyers of the plaintiffs. And after more than a decade battling the case in court, the weight of the biggest one has won over these women’s claims.
The US Supreme Court argued that the claimants’ lawyers presented no convincing proof of a “company wide discriminatory pay and promotion policy”. That’s why, in the words of Justice Antonin Scalia, “we have concluded that they have not established the existence of any common question”. Nonetheless, statistics offered by the claimants state that, despite the fact that more than 70 per cent of the employees are female, only 15 per cent occupy a decision-making post. Despite the fact that women at Wal-Mart earn 14 per cent less than men, the corporation rejects this fact and states firmly that its corporative policy banned “any kind of discrimination”. Plaintiffs produced more than 100 testimonies, claiming a different version of the situation.
For Renee Laiviera, chairperson of Malta Confederation of Women’s Organisations, the decision of the Supreme Court can be understood within the framework of the “difficult economic situation the world, including the USA, is in”. In her opinion, “had the women been given a chance to be heard and won their case, the financial consequences for Wal-Mart would have run into millions of dollars”. Moreover, “it would have set a precedent for gender discrimination cases at many other corporations,” said Ms Laiviera.
The case dates back to 2001, when, after six years of working hard, Betty Duke, an employee in the supermarket Wal-Mart decided that it was time to improve her skills and started attending courses in order to be able to attain better positions. However, a categorical No was the answer. The reason given was simply that she was a female, though in not so many words. She refused to take no for an answer, plucked up courage and together with five other colleagues filed a lawsuit against the supermarket, claiming gender discrimination. They claimed that they were paid less than men and as a consequence, they had less chance of promotion, which went against their rights, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Gender discrimination in labour markets is not something new for Europe either, where the latest statistics show that on average only 12 per cent of board members are women. In Malta, the situation is worse; according to the latest report on Gender Balance in Business Leadership, “Malta has consistently shown that it lags behind with regard to Gender Equality in the workplace, with a gender gap in employment (between those aged 20 to 64) of 37.1 per cent in 2009, which, though 9.8 per cent lower than 2004, is still the worst performance in the EU”.
When it comes to politics, out of a chamber of nearly 70 deputies, only five are women, a fact that earned Malta 33rd place out of 169 countries as far as the International Gender Inequality Report goes. As a matter of fact, women are under-represented in Parliaments across the world, but among the 27 members of EU, Malta ranks as one of the worst performers.
In the opinion of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE), “there is still the widespread perception that the woman’s place is in the home”, while giving an example how “in a supermarket, it is often presumed that the cashiers will be predominantly female and storeroom workers male”. Needless to say, these assumptions can have a negative impact, “as they restrict the range of options that women and men have open to them when looking for a job or planning a career”, according to NCPE.
In this scenario, a change in mentality is important. Hence, NCPE is working on an EU co-financed project aimed at encouraging equal opportunities at the place of work. Through the project’s campaign, companies are applying for the ‘Equality Mark’. This Equality Mark is awarded to companies that prove they are gender-equal in the opportunities they offer. The challenge now is to ensure the commitment of the business sector in promoting non-discrimination policies, adopting family friendly measures that allow men and women with caring responsibilities to be competitive in their workplace and attend to their family life.
To accomplish this goal, campaigns are important and create awareness but the change will come about when there is a concerted effort to push in the same direction. The measures that really and truly will encourage women to move to the labour market and commit to it for the long haul is when they can afford quality child care and enjoy fiscal incentives for the effort that balancing working and family life entails. The Maltese Goliath seems to be more in the form of inadequate practical support than insensitive corporations.
Ms Garcia Reche is a Spanish journalist at the Foundation for Human Resources Development.