Wal-Mart is one of the largest employers in the US. At the same time, Wal-Mart conducts discriminatory practices in relation to its employees. In this regard, it is possible to refer to the past experience of the company and lost lawsuits related to the discrimination on the ground of race and gender. In actuality, Wal-Mart still carries on its discriminatory practices, whereas lawsuits contribute to the protection of employees from any manifestation of discrimination and discriminatory practices being conducted by the company.
On analyzing cases of discrimination from the part of Wal-Mart, it is possible to refer to the cases of racial discrimination. For instance, on March 18, 2010 at the store in Washington Township, Gloucester County, New Jersey an announcement was made allegedly saying “attention Wal-Mart customers ”“ all black people leave store now” (Mail Foreign Service, 2010). In this regard, it is worth mentioning other cases of racial discrimination being conducted by Wal-Mart in relation to its customers and employees. For instance, the company had lost lawsuits to African-American truck drivers.
At the same time, the company conducted discriminatory practices in relations to disabled people. To put it more precisely, the company limited the access of disabled to the company in terms of employment. They could not have equal opportunities to find a workplace in Wal-Mart because of their disability compared to other employees. In addition, the company conducted discrimination policies in relation to customers with disabilities because the company failed to create conditions for their access to the stores of the company. Wal-Mart lacked facilities destined for people with disabilities. In this regard, the company did not follow the norms defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a result, the company failed to meet the rights of people with disabilities and conducted discriminatory policies in relation to Americans with disabilities.
Furthermore, the company conducted discriminatory practices in relation to female employees. In this regard, it is possible to distinguish two areas of discrimination, including the payment and promotion discrimination. In fact, the company created unequal conditions for male and female employees. To put it more precisely, the company prefers to promote male employees, whereas female employees have a few opportunities to get promotion in the company. In such a way, Wal-Mart conducts discriminatory policies in relation to its female employees in terms of promotion. In this regard, it is worth mentioning the fact that the top executives of the company are predominantly male, whereas the managerial staff is mainly male.
Furthermore, the discrimination of female employees expands on the area of payment. To put it more precisely, the company provides female employees have lower wages compared to male employees. At this point, it is important to place emphasis on the fact that male and female employees perform the same functions and do the similar job. Moreover, they have the similar qualification but still their wages vary consistently and females earn less than male employees in Wal-Mart. This policy has led to numerous lawsuits filed and won by female employees against Wal-Mart.
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is possible to conclude that Wal-Mart is a successful company but still the company conducts discriminatory policies in relation to its employees and customers on the ground of race and gender. In such a way, discriminatory practices of Wal-Mart are unacceptable today.
Mail Foreign Service. (18 March 2010). Wal-Mart’s Black People Leave Store Announcement. Retrieved on June 20, 2011 from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258679/Wal-Marts-black-people-leave-store-announcement-sparks-probe.html
Neumark, David, “Employer’s Discriminatory Behavior and the Estimation of Wage Discrimination.” Journal of Human Resources, Vol. XXIII, 1988, 279-295.
Polachek, S. and B. Yoon. “A Two-Tiered Earnings Frontier Estimation of Employer and Employee Information in the Labor Market,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 69(2), May, 1987, p.296-302.
Reuter, A.A. “Subtle but Pervasive: Discrimination against Mothers and Pregnant Women in the Workplace.” Fordham Urban Law Journal, 33(5), 2006, p.1369-1383.
Robinson, M.D. “Measuring Discrimination against Females: Is the “Non-Discriminatory” Wage the Male or the Female Wage? American Economist. 37(1), 1993, p.45-54.
Stopler, G. “Countenancing the Oppression of Women: How Liberals Tolerate Religious and Cultural Practices That Discriminate against Women.” Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. 12(1), 2003, p.154-169.