Is the Class-Action Lawsuit for Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart Legitimate - or Circumstantial?

The recent class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for gender discrimination alleges that women were unfairly passed over for promotions and paid less than male workers. And while I myself am I woman, I have some reservations about these claims.

The headlines across the nation, both in print newspapers and online, have made it well known to the general public that Wal-Mart is being sued in a class action lawsuit, claiming that gender bias at Wal-Mart prevented women from being promoted, receiving advancement opportunities, or getting equal pay for equal work. (see official news sources below). I do not have the facts of the case in front of me, nor do I have a law degree, but my thoughts on the matter are more in favor of Wal-Mart than the women. Let me explain.

First and foremost, my sympathy is with the women. I am certain that there are some of these individual cases that did in fact involve gender discrimination at Wal-Mart stores, discrimination that had nothing to do with one's qualifications, work history, reliability, or other desirable attributes. Then again, examining this issue from a business standpoint, there could be just reason for not promoting someone who can't (or won't) marry themselves to the work requirements or company philosophy. I believe that the case against Wal-Mart is less about true gender discrimination and more about making smart business decisions.

Did Wal-Mart engage in gender discrimination, or non-gender related business decisions?

As a woman, I know that my kids come first. If I was working at a traditional job, even at the executive level, I would take off of work in a heart beat if my children were sick or needed me. I am going to put myself out on a limb here when I say that there is a large majority of other mothers who think and feel the same way. Our loyalties are to our children, not to our jobs. This is a fact that we cannot deny. Nobody forces us to make these choices, but when our hearts and minds are set on the nurturing mother's way of life and our bodies (and bank accounts) are determined to earn a living, the employer ultimately gets left behind. Businesses know and understand these trends as well. Some have implemented in-house daycare centers, including sick rooms for children who are ill. Others have not jumped on the band wagon, including Wal-Mart.

For these reasons, I believe that the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart over gender discrimination may not be about passing over a woman because they are a woman, but because women with children are more likely to take off of work when a child is sick.

Does our society promote gender discrimination in the work place?

As much as we would like to believe that Americans no longer accept the traditional roles of men and women, we cannot deny that there are still many gender inequality issues. These issues are perpetuated by social dynamics, preventing each gender from overcoming gender obstacles. Men are expected to be the bread winners, the providers, the workers. Women, on the other hand, are expected to be caring, nurturing mothers, loving daughters and wives, and to support their husbands. Even many religions across the globe support this philosophy. Should either gender fail to meet these expectations, they are rewarded with a tainted reputation, shunned, or in some countries, killed.

Daycare centers, schools, civic organizations, and even many church-based child care and educational programs in America are at the forefront of gender discrimination. In many locations, these facilities do not permit sick children to remain there. In some cases, something as simple as a runny nose would warrant a phone call to the parents, who are required to retrieve the child as soon as possible. Some centers may ask parents to take their child to the doctor and obtain a clean bill of health before readmitting them to the facility. Fevers over 100 degrees at most of these facilities result in an automatic call to the parents as well. Mothers, as it would seem, are most likely to receive the first phone call. Fathers are contacted only if the mother is unavailable. Business owners, therefore, would have a logical argument against hiring or promoting women for important positions, since women have a longer, proven track record of leaving work early to care for a child than men.

Can our Judicial System be Blamed for Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart?

Our judicial system in America continues to promote gender discrimination, granting mothers with child custody more often than fathers. Unless there are extenuating circumstances where the mother cannot care for the child or is somehow unfit, fathers are left with paying child support or seeing the children on scheduled visits. While both men and women fight for child custody on an equal level, women are more likely to receive social and legal support. Women have the right to demand 50/50 custody, but many do not, even when the father is a good, upstanding man. She does not have to worry about earning enough money to pay her own household expenses and child support too. Should she be unable to meet these needs, it is much easier and more socially acceptable for her to find and utilize charitable assistance programs.

Because of these child custody rulings, men are more likely to be saddled with child support judgements than women, since our court systems still grant the children to women more often than men. If a man is unable to make these payments, he faces severe legal and monetary consequences, creating yet another driving force behind his need to work long, hard hours despite all odds.

For these reasons, we can understand why smart business decisions include keeping reliable, hard-working employees. If men are more willing to meet these requirements, then men will be more likely to receive advancement opportunities. In this case, we can understand that gender discrimination at Wal-Mart might not be so much about the gender in and of itself, but rather the choices that each gender is most likely to make.

Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart: Physical or Emotional Pain Differences Between Genders

Expressions of physical or emotional pain are more acceptable in women, while this is not the case for men. This is perhaps the most obvious form of bias in our American society, and could be a factor in the gender discrimination case against Wal-Mart. Because such expressions are acceptable, women have less reservations when it comes to telling her employer that she does not feel well, is experiencing pain, or is going through emotional trauma. Following the death of a loved one, she is most likely to need a longer time for grieving, and her continued emotional state upon returning to work could further hinder her ability to perform work duties.

A man, on the other hand, must not only hide his emotional pain, but he must "suck it up" and keep going in the face of physical pain or illness. Our American society tells men that it is wrong to cry, to express pain, or to show any sign that these factors affect him in any way.

While women may be quite talented at multi-tasking when it comes to completing tasks, remembering details, or keeping on a schedule, they are not as skilled with their emotions. When a woman is dealing with personal issues, she might try to hide her feelings while at work, but it is highly likely that they will spill over into her conversations with others, hinder her job performance, or create poor customer service encounters.

Men, on the other hand, are hard wired for focus, also known as having a "one track mind." While major emotional issues might be raging through his head, he finds it within himself to put his thoughts aside and focus on the job at hand. Not only does he want to avoid the negative social rammifications of showing his emotions on the job or in public, but he does nto want to hinder his ability to work either. For a man, it is also in his best interest to avoid showing physical pain as well, unless the pain is more intense than he can bear.

Are the expression of these emotions or feelings of pain acceptable by everyone, regardless of gender? For the most part, the answer is "No." We would like to believe that gender bias is on the decline, and at best, is no longer in existence, but in reality it is often a part of our everyday lives. Could these issues be a factor in the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for gender discrimination? Perhaps. But what boss would continue to promote someone who seems to have problems keeping themselves together? It is not a matter of whether the person is male or female, but if they can provide the level of employee loyalty and dedication that the employer desires.

Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart: Where Do Men and Women Base Their Loyalties?

Men, because of various social, financial, and legal pressures, are strongly driven to work all the hours that they can, to devote themselves to their companies, and to bend over backwards for employers. They are more willing to sacrifice time with their wives or children when an employment opportunity arises, as society values the earning potential of a man more than his ability to nurture his children. After all, it is the "man's job" to provide for his family, according to our American social standards. Likewise, a man who is sick is more likely to go to work despite his illness, grit his teeth and bear it when his back is in pain, or self medicate for a host of issues. Personal issues, even deeply disturbing ones, cannot interfer with the man's ability to work. He hides his various conditions, which in turn causes the employer to believe that he is a hard working, reliable person, perhaps more so than his female counter parts who have less reservations about showing pain, emotions, or staying home when they are sick. Men are told to "suck it up and keep going," while women are consoled and offered rest.

A woman's loyalties, on the other hand, are more likely to rest with the care and nurturing of herself and others. Mothers who still have children at home are more likely to take care of the child themselves, travel with kids to their doctor's appointments, or make necessary child care arrangements. If a trusted elder or non-working relative is not available for emergencies, she is required to care for the child on her own. Calling neighbors or friends for help in caring for sick children sometimes provides relief, but in others it results in statements such as, "Can't you take care of them" or "Doesn't your employer understand that you need to take off of work?" Our society expects women to be the nurturers, taking care of all emotional and physical needs. These needs cannot be addressed if she is at work, which in turn results in a degree of gender discrimination in the workplace. Should she fail to meet these nurturing expectations, she is judged with statements such as "bad mother," "uncaring mother," inconsiderate of her children," or "too stuck on money."

Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart: Societal Pity for Women

Women seem to receive social pity, from getting aid at charitable organization to leniency at the work place. Should she need to take off of work for a sick child, relative, friend, or herself, she is more willing to do so, even when she is counted upon by her employer. Lost wages can be recovered by visiting charitiable organizations, who will regard her in a more friendly and helpful manner than her male counterparts. Women, according to society, have an unfair shake in work opportunities, and therefore deserve some assistance. If she works a part time job or chooses to stay home and not work at all, this is perfectly acceptable in social circles. Other women might encourage her to seek out other charitable organizations to make the most of her resources, whereas a man would be encouraged to get a second job. If she is in a relationship she may be asked, "Is your husband working" or "Can't your husband get a second job"?

Our society looks down upon any man who does not provide for his family. Men are pressured from every angle, including how much they make, where they work, and their ability to support the family with his income. Should the man lose his job, work part time, or be unable to pay his bills, he is looked down upon as worthless, inadequate, or uncaring. It is not socially acceptable in America for a man to fail to meet these expectations. Should he fail, due to lack of employment or taking off of work to care for a child, there are few honorable venues for financial relief.

And while there are a number of charitable organizations who help with food, utility bills, emergency rent payments, or gasoline, men who apply for these services are often talked down to with snide statements such as, "Well, can't you support your family? Maybe you shouldn't have had children, then." Ask any man who has been down on his luck about his experiences with trying to get emergency help, and he is most likely to mention that it was very difficult.

A man would not receive compassion or consideration unless he was absolutely unable to help himself. If, and only if, the man was working non-stop, forsaking all personal pleasures, doing completely without food, and falling apart physically or emotionally would he receive a pat on the back or social support. Why? Men are expected to provide, and women are expected to nurture. If either party doesn't comply, they are looked down upon by society. Social organizations have pity on women when they choose to stay home to care for their children instead of going to work. Yet, an employer who factors in the consequences of these social stygmas in relation to his or her bottom line is somehow committing gender discrimination, even at Wal-Mart.

Gender Discrimination at Wal-Mart: Elder Care Issues

If you have never had the opportunity to care for an elder at home during their final moments of life, these statements may not make any sense to you. But, if you have had to care for your ailing mother, father, relatives, or others, you know that there is a tremendous strain among family members. It has been my experience that, while caring for two elders during separate periods of time, it was the women who did the majority of the hands-on care. Since then I have encountered numerous other women who had the same experiences. It is the women, not the men, who are most likely to help in bathing, cleaning up bodily fluids, changing bandages, cooking meals, giving meds, or any other health care task. As is the case in the nursing field, when it comes to taking care of these tasks, it is more socially acceptable for a woman to do so than a man, only one of many clear examples of gender bias in our society. And frankly, when gender bias is acceptable in society, it will be acceptable in the work place as well.

Women, therefore, are more likely to take off from work to care for an elderly or needy relative than are men, which in turn leads to more gender discrimination at Wal-Mart or any other employer. If the employer knows that a woman's mother or close relative is at the end of life, they may pass her by for the most recent round of managerial promotions, assuming that she will take off of work when care is necessary. Gender bias is further promoted when it comes to elder care. Since men are more likely to be married to their jobs than women, they are more likely to hire a home health provider, call their female relatives, or enlist the help of other women rather than to take off of work himself. And while employers should not make these assumptions, they can't help but hear the conversations between employees, where women are more likely to discuss upcoming or life-altering events such as these.

If you were an employer and knew that your top female employee planned to take off of work for six months, maybe even a year, to care for her terminally ill mother, would you promote her right away or wait until she returned? Would you wait to make a promotional decision until the woman was back on the job? Would this decision hurt the company as a whole or create arguments among remaining employees? Perhaps the class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for gender discrimination contains some of these elements.

Has Wal-Mart promoted gender bias, or is this class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart about a gender discrimination issue that is present throughout society?

There is no doubt that gender discrimination, gender inequality, and gender biased social standards exist in America. And while I am certain that there are some individuals who are discriminated against solely on the basis of gender, I also know that there is always two sides to every story. Perhaps in the case of Wal-Mart, the gender discrimination lawsuit is not about the fact that an employee is male or female, but rather, that the societal roles, expectations, and behaviors expected of each gender creates opportunities for businesses to succeed or fail. If women choose to lay their jobs aside in favor of family obligations, they can expect that their male counterparts will get the promotions, raises, or opportunities for advancement. And, to my knowledge, personal choices that do not work out as anticipated cannot be remedied through legal battles.

Sources:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Walmart-Denied-the-Option-to-bw-666265883.html?x=0&.v=1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042602515.html
http://www.twincities.com/business/ci_14961822?nclick_check=1
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/26/wal-mart-discrimination-ruling.html