‘Greeter’ becomes face of fight vs. Wal-Mart

AP
By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer – Sat May 1, 2:47 pm ET

PITTSBURG, Calif. – As a “greeter,” the cheerful Betty Dukes is one of the first employees customers usually see as they walk through the front doors of the Wal-Mart store here.

As the first “named plaintiff” in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, the ordained Baptist minister also is the face of the largest gender bias class action lawsuit in U.S. history — one that could cost the world’s largest private employer billions.

Her dual roles have turned her into a civil rights crusader for the company’s many critics, who have dubbed the legal battle “Betty v. Goliath.” It is a far cry from where Dukes expected to be when she enthusiastically accepted an offer in 1994 to work the cash registers part-time for $5 an hour. She dreamed of turning around a hard life by advancing, through work and determination, into Wal-Mart corporate management.

“I was focused on Wal-Mart’s aggressive customer service,” Dukes said in an interview during her lunch break, after first saying grace over a meal of fast-food hamburgers and chicken nuggets. “I wanted to advance. I wanted to make that money.”

But by 1999, her plans were in tatters. Several years of little advancement and frustration with her role culminated with an ugly spat with managers that resulted in a humiliating demotion and a pay cut, she said.

That also became the genesis of the federal class action lawsuit U.S. District Court Judge Martin Jenkins called “historic” while he was handling the case. On Monday, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld Jenkins’ decision allowing the case to go to trial as a class action on behalf of as many as 1 million former and current female Wal-Mart employees.

Jenkins has since stepped down from the federal bench and the case will now be handled by U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, who is also deciding another high-profile case, the legality of California’s voter-approved ban of same-sex marriages.

Dukes’ lawsuit alleges Wal-Mart is violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which made it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of race, creed or gender. Dukes alleges that Wal-Mart systemically pays women less than their male counterparts and promotes men to higher positions at faster rates than women.

The Bentonville, Ark. retailer denies the accusations and argues that if there are any instances of discrimination they are isolated, and not an overarching company policy. Wal-Mart says any such cases should be handled as individual lawsuits, not as a class action.

The retailer has fiercely fought the lawsuit since it was first filed in federal court in San Francisco in 2001 and said it would appeal the most recent decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The incident that sparked the epic legal battle began while Dukes served as a customer service manager.

Dukes, 60, needed change to make a small purchase during her break. She asked a colleague to open a cash register with a one-cent transaction, which she claims was a common practice.

Nevertheless, she was demoted for misconduct. She complained to a manager that the punishment was too severe and part of a long campaign of discrimination that began almost as soon as she started working for Wal-Mart in this blue-collar city of about 100,000, some 45 miles east of San Francisco.

She believed the reprimand was partially motivated by race. She’s black and the managers were white.

When those complaints were ignored, Dukes sought legal advice.

She ended up being represented by Brad Seligman, an attorney had who launched The Impact Fund, a legal nonprofit, in 1992.

Seligman said he asked Dukes to serve as lead plaintiff in what would become a vast class action because of her strong personality.

“I’m somewhat in awe of her, particularly that she has managed to work at Wal-Mart for all these years,” Seligman said. “It is extraordinary difficult to find someone who wants to risk their jobs by filing a lawsuit against their employer.”

Seligman and other attorneys told Dukes that she wasn’t alone, that many other women had similar complaints. They said they would like to use her and five other former and current Wal-Mart employees to file the class action lawsuit.

“My jaw fell open,” Dukes said when told of the other complaining women. “I thought I was by myself.”

That was nine years ago. And with Wal-Mart insisting the lawsuit is without merit and vowing to continue its fight, it appears the litigation has more years to go.

Dukes is undeterred by that prospect and sanguine about the outcome.

“It’s a very courageous thing for a person to do, to stick with it over such a long period of time,” said Marcia Greenberger, founder of the Washington D.C. advocacy group National Women’s Law Center. “The individuals who step forward pay a very big price to be willing to tell their stories and to hold their records up to public scrutiny.”

The center has filed a “friend of the court” brief supporting the Dukes lawsuit, as have the NAACP and Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also filed a brief supporting the lawsuit.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other organizations, fearful that a ruling in Dukes’ favor will expose other companies to costly lawsuits, have filed briefs urging dismissal of the complaint.

Ms. Magazine named her one of its “Women of the Year” for 2004, the same year Liz Featherstone’s book “Selling Women Short: The Landmark Battle for Workers’ Rights at Wal-Mart” was published. Featherstone has compared Dukes to Rosa Parks, the civil rights crusader.

“I am very grateful that I’m on this platform,” Dukes said. “In this life, you have to stand up or be trampled.”

She leans heavily on her faith, believing she has God on her side and that she’s been called upon to fight for others.

Through it all, Dukes has remained humble, saying she lives with her mother because she can’t afford a place of her own on her $15.23 an hour salary.

“There are times that I can’t afford my lunch,” she said, wrapping her chicken nuggets in a napkin for later. “But I’m still blessed.”

She’s guarded about her past life, vaguely saying she has faced “many tsunamis.” Dukes mother moved the family from their native Louisiana to California 50 years ago. Dukes was married briefly but is single today and childless.

She preaches often at her church on Sunday and said that fellow employees often approach her for spiritual counseling. She slipped into preacher mode when asked about Betty versus Goliath characterization.

“David had five stones but only need one,” she said, comparing the biblical victory to the single lawsuit that she hopes will be decided in favor of Wal-Mart’s women employees.

Dukes said that there have been few problems with managers and co-workers since the lawsuit was filed in 2001. She said the work atmosphere gets a “little chilly” after courtroom victories are reported in the media.

Seligman, her lawyer, said her involvement in the lawsuit may even have benefited her.

“It seems like that at every pivotal moment in the litigation,” Seligman said, “Betty gets a raise.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Removes Review From Death-Penalty Statute

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted to strip the so-called “proportionality review” from Georgia’s death-penalty statute.

The proportionality review, which legal experts have called a critical part of the state’s capital punishment law, is conducted by the Georgia Supreme Court. In its review, the court compares a death sentence to punishment in other cases to ensure a capital sentence is not excessive or disproportionate. The review is meant to ensure that capital cases are not imposed arbitrarily.

The move to strip the review from state law is part of House Bill 323, which now goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
By: Ernie Suggs AJC

Senate Judiciary Committee considers two bills affecting Georgia’s children.

In a 3-hour meeting today, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered two bills, SB 391 and SB 304.

SB 391 seeks to create additional facilities, other than youth detention centers, where children deemed mentally incompetent to stand trial can be held for treatment purposes. Three organizations – the Department of Behavioral Health, All About Developmental Disabilities, and the National Mental Health Association of Georgia – spoke in support of the bill, stating it will optimize the state’s ability to treat these mentally ill children. The committee voted unanimously to pass the bill substitute.

While SB 391 moved forward, Senator Renée Unterman’s bill SB 304 did not. This bill addresses child prostitution, instances of which take place approximately 7200 times per month in Georgia. The bill in its current form proposes to include within the Juvenile Justice Code category of “unruly child” anyone under 16 years old who has engaged in forced or coerced prostitution. The bill would require the court to place a child who falls under this category in a rehabilitative, rather than youth detention, facility.

Senator Murphy introduced the bill on behalf of Senator Unterman, who was not present at the meeting due to illness. The committee then heard over two hours of testimony both for and against the bill. Organizations testifying for the bill included A Future Not A Past, Street Graze, Angela’s House, the Interfaith Children’s Movement, the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, the National Mental Health Association of Georgia, affiliates of the Catholic and Presbyterian churches of Georgia, and Georgia Women for Change. These groups asserted that the bill will alleviate Georgia’s child prostitution issues by ensuring that children victimized by this criminal endeavor can obtain needed psychiatric attention. Additionally, law enforcement-affiliated proponents of the bill argued it will encourage victimized children to testify against their pimps, thus increasing chances of prosecuting these criminals.

Several individual citizens, including a former state senator and a retired probation officer, spoke against the bill. These individuals argued that the bill essentially will “decriminalize” prostitution and hinder law enforcement’s ability to prosecute pimps and human traffickers. This unintended consequence, they argued, will aggravate, rather than alleviate, Georgia’s child prostitution problems.

Although the testimonies elicited much thought-provoking inquiry from the committee members, the committee did not move on the bill. In closing, Senator Wiles and other committee members mentioned their wish to hear Georgia juvenile court testimony on the bill, and which will be granted the next time the bill comes before the committee for consideration.

Legislation Under Watch

TRANSPORTATION
HB 1218- Rep. Cole (Dist. 125)
Proposes to further define the role of the Director of Planning and allow the formulation and implementation of information about money spent and gained throughout the department. The bill will also allow special districts to further develop innovative transportation projects that promote public interest. Under the proposal, 90% of proceeds collected within a district are to be used within that district based on the approved investment list. Status: House Second Readers

HB 1252- Rep. Jacobs (Dist. 80)
Creates the Transit Governance Study Commission, which would conduct research on the effectiveness of combining public transportation systems throughout the state and how to better allocate resources for regional traffic congestion in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Status: House Hopper

HB 1047- Rep. Butler (Dist. 18)
Creates a fine for every driver of a motor vehicle blocking the flow of traffic. A person may drive a reduced speed when necessary. This will not apply to managed lanes or HOV lanes. There will be a minimum of a $75 fine for anyone blocking the flow of traffic in the left lane. Status: House Committee Favorable

CHILDREN AND YOUTH
HB 922- Rep. Cox (Dist. 102)
Provides funding for therapy services to children who are medically fragile or disabled. Those who are under 21 maybe eligable for public assistant funding which is provide by medicare. Status: House Second Reader

ENVIRONMENT
HB 1028 – Rep. Roberts (Dist. 154)
Defines the word contiguous and give specific meaning to what actions classify as forest land conservation use. It further details what the penalties are if conservation contracts are breached and who is held liable if breaches do occur. This bill also gives the commissioner the power to make any additional laws deemed necessary for the implementation and enforcement. Status: Senate Read and Referred

HB 244- Rep. Pruett (Dist. 144)
Changes the name of the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority to the Georgia Environmental Finance Authority (GEFA). Also provides GEFA with the authorization to transfer any excess funds to the state to sell off. This legislation would most prominently affect the Georgia Fund, a state revolving loan fund. If enacted, Perdue proposes that Georgia sell off, as a bond package, as much as $450 million in current water loan funding to provide $290 million towards the state budget shortfall. This bill could potentially have far-reaching consequences: it could harm counties’ ability to comply with clean water and drinking water laws, lead to higher water bills, and eliminate job opportunities. Status: Pending in the Senate Rules Committee

JUDICIARY
HB 972- Rep. Mitchell (Dist. 88)
Changes the period in which a property owner is notified of a possible foreclosure, extending it from 30 days to 90 days to allow debtors more time to pay off their debt. Status: House Second Reader

HB 1009- Rep. Marin (Dist. 96)
Seeks to curtail racial profiling by law enforcement officials. Requires policies that would prohibit officers from impermissibly using race or ethnicity in determining whether to stop a driver or pedestrian. Also provides that officers have training on unethical behavior of racial profiling, mandates preparation in foreign language instruction, and requires them to document the race, gender, and age of passengers in a car every time they make a traffic stop. Status: Assigned to the House Committee on Judiciary.

ECONOMY
HB 1259- Rep. Reese (Dist. 98)
Enacts the Georgia Employer and Worker Protection of Act of 2010, which would require all Georgia businesses to sign an affidavit agreeing to participate in the federal citizenship verification program, called E-Verify, in order to obtain a business license or occupational tax certificate. Currently, only state agencies and municipalities are required to participate in E-verify. Failure to comply with E-verify would be a misdemeanor, and annual audits of e-verify reporting agencies would ensure that businesses are following the set regulations. If passed, this bill would be effective on July 1, 2010 and would apply to all business licenses of occupational tax certificates issued after that date. Status: House Hopper

HB 1125- Rep. Stephens (Dist. 164)
Enacts the Georgia Tourism and Development Act. Grants Georgia Department of Economic Development and local governments the ability to enter into agreements with new tourism attractions, allowing them to refund the sales and use tax accrued from the attraction. New attractions that qualify for this tax refund include historical and cultural sites, sports facilities, scenic areas or natural phenomena, hotels and conference centers, golf courses, water parks, boat marinas, and other tourism amenities. This sales and use tax refund would be granted to new tourist attractions for ten years, commencing upon attraction opening date. Status: House Second Reader

TAXATION
HR 1- Rep. Lindsey (Dist. 54)
Proposes constitutional amendment to cap annual property assessment increases of property value at 3% or the rate of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is less. Would become effective in 2011. The purpose of this resolution is to ensure that sold or transferred property is assessed for tax purposes at fair market value, which is defined as no more than the sales price of the property value in an arms length transaction. Status: Pending in House Ways and Means Committee

The League of Women Voters National Office Reacts to Campaign Finance Ruling

The following is a statement by Mary G. Wilson, national president of the League of Women Voters on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The League filed an amicus brief in this case:

“The Supreme Court has made a tragic mistake. Their decision announced today in Citizens United v. FEC is constitutionally irresponsible and will surely bring about an anti-democratic revolution in how we finance elections in this country. Today, basic pillars of American democracy have been undermined – that elections should not be corrupted by vast corporate wealth and that the voters should be at the center of our democratic system.

“Justice Stevens had it right when he said, in his dissent, ‘The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.’

“In creating a new constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of their shareholder’s money to determine the outcome in candidate elections, the Court has unleashed into our elections tremendous sums of money from for-profit corporations that cannot possibly be matched in quantity by contributions from ordinary citizens. The only possible outcome of this is that big money and special interests will have an even tighter grip on our democracy.

“Congress and the President enacted campaign finance laws over a series of decades for a reason – to protect our democracy from the perverse influence of big money in our elections. In making this decision, the Court has ignored the best interests of the American public and our representative form of government.”

For Further Information Please Visit
www.lwv.org