Class Action Finder » Gender Discrimination

Sex discrimination class action against Bloomberg expands

yuming — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:32:56 +0000

Financial services news giant Bloomberg is facing more plaintiffs in a class action suit filed in 2007. From just three women, now the class members have grown to 58.

The suit, filed by EEOC, alleges that Bloomberg encourages discrimination against pregnant women who faced demotion after giving birth. They faced diminished duties and were excluded from career opportunities.

Lead plaintiff Monica Prestia filed the original lawsuit mid-2007 after she became pregnant in February 2005. She alleged that the work place was hostile to pregnant women and new mothers and she was treated differently from male colleagues.

EEOC senior trial attorney Raechel Adams predicts the number will increase even more as the organization continues to rope in more women from Bloomberg who echo having experienced the same discriminatory attitudes since 2002.

In response to the allegations, Bloomberg spokeswoman Judith Czelusniak said: “We believe strongly that the allegations are without merit and we intend to defend the case vigorously.”

Wal-Mart

yuming — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 04:04:26 +0000

Update:

The gender discrimination class action filed against Wal-Mart has been reaffirmed on December 11 2007. It is touted as the biggest sexual discrimination case in United States history. Wal-Mart’s appeal failed to head off this case as a class action lawsuit.

It is estimated that Wal-Mart could lose billions of dollars in lost pay and damages because they have had two million female employees since 1998, when this class action suit was initially filed.

However, Wal-Mart could file a new petition for an appeal and their lawyer, Theodore Boutrous confirmed that the American retailer has intentions to do so.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals announced that it will not change its position in the certification of this case but gave both parties allowances to appeal.

Six other women have since joined the suit filed by the original lead plaintiff, Betty Dukes, in 2001.

Walmart class action suit:

This is a landmark nationwide sex discrimination class action lawsuit against America’s largest retail giant. America’s retail giant made headlines on 22 June 2004 when the U.S. District Court ruled that six current and former Wal-Mart employees from California may represent all female employees of Wal-Mart who worked at its U.S. stores since 26 December 1998, in a landmark nationwide sex discrimination class action lawsuit.
Based on statistical analysis, this suit covered approximately 1.6 million female employees who were subjected to unequal treatment, in terms of salary and promotions. While women made up 70 per cent of Wal-Mart’s hourly staff, but only 30 percent were in store managerial roles.

Anecdotal evidence reflected Wal-Mart’s hostile work environment. Top female executive referred to female colleagues as “little Janie Qs”. The company also organized an annual quail hunting retreat that women in the higher positions found objectionable.

Washington, D.C. law firm, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, represented the women in the case.

According to official website walmartclass.com, the case’s current status has been frozen, that means the decision on Wal-Mart’s appeal of the class certification was still status quo from 28 November 2005.

On 6 February 2007, the federal appeals court upheld a 2004 ruling that gave this gender discrimination lawsuit class action status. Therefore, claims from up to 1.5 million current and former staff, were sanctioned.

Union Pacific

yuming — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 03:57:40 +0000

This is gender discrimination lawsuit filed against America’s largest railroad company, Union Pacific that operates in 23 states. Although they provided a wide variety of preventive healthcare, including impotence and hair loss drugs, their policies, however, excluded contraceptives for women.

In June 2005, a federal judge ruled that Union Pacific discriminated against women by refusing them contraceptive coverage. Backed by Planned Parenthood, the class action lawsuit allegedly charged that Union Pacific’s employee healthcare plan violated the federal Civil Rights Act.

The lead plaintiffs were Union Pacific employees Brandi Standridge from Idaho and Kenya Phillips from Kansas City.

Since then, the railroad has included contraceptive coverage. In March 2007, charges of gender discrimination were dropped. According to the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Union Pacific did not discriminate against women, because its health policies did not cover men or women for contraceptives.

Morgan Stanley

yuming — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 03:57:09 +0000

A female financial advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. filed a national class action lawsuit charging the company with gender discrimination. On June 22, 2006, a female financial advisor at Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. filed a national class action lawsuit charging the company with gender discrimination.

The lawsuit, called Jaffe v. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc., was filed a San Francisco federal court. Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. is the retail brokerage arm of Morgan Stanley.

The plaintiff accuses Morgan Stanley DW, Inc. of practising gender discrimination against its female financial advisors by giving male financial advisors a bigger share of business opportunities, accounts and renumeration.

The complaint says that Morgan Stanley assigns fewer and less lucrative accounts to female financial advisors who are given fewer business leads than their male counterparts. The consequence of which results in male brokers nabbing more accounts and bigger financial compensation.

The complaint alleges violations of federal and state laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act on behalf of the plaintiff and the class.