Header graphic for print
The Corporate Observer A Publication by Attorneys Devoted to Protecting Consumer Rights

Elizabeth Warren, Walmart and Discrimination Against Women

Posted in Social Policy

He saved his real ire, however, for Professor Warren.  Early on in his personal attack, he called her a “lady”.  It was the word and his emphasis on the word that gave me pause.  It made two young women at my table flinch too, and they rolled their eyes as they whispered to each other.

I am a white male born just at the end of the baby boom.  I grew up in a comfortable middle class home in a nice suburb in one of the nation’s largest cities.  From my earliest memories of elementary school, I competed with women (at the time they were of course 1st graders like me).  I remember running from the bus to meet my mother with my report card, which had a few A’s but was also smattered with a few other letters.  Alas, I knew that my best friend, neighbor and competitor in all matters, Marisa was delivering another set of straight A’s to her mother… who would talk with my mother (you get the picture).  Through high school and college and into law school, women were always at least half the class.  Some were superstars and some were not, but it never seemed based on anything but merit.

Entering the workforce, as a young lawyer, women were — as they always had been — my colleagues and competitors.  But for the first time, I started seeing a distinction between men and women in the workplace.  Women bear children.  Men do not.  Because of that basic biological reality, I started seeing woman in significant numbers going part time, or taking a position in-house where the hours were more regular.  They had biological imperatives that I could not appreciate. Another more troubling change was the behavior of some men, mostly of my father’s generation, and how they treated women in the workplace.

They, the men, were the partners, women were associates and the male partners exploited that power.  I knew that took place, subtly and overtly, and some law firms were worse than others. Without minimizing this underside of my profession, many of my female friends and colleagues deservedly persevered and reached the pantheon of our profession, becoming Judges, Managing Partners of law firms, general counsels of large corporations, and law professors.  Based on my limited slice of reality, where women had done quite well, I have always been a bit dubious of claims for gender discrimination, particularly as it relates to female professionals.

My comfortable (and naïve) perception that all was right in the world of gender and employment was snapped earlier this week.  I was attended a conference at no less than the United States Chamber of Commerce in Washington, DC, just across Lafayette Park from the White House.  I was there to see and hear Professor Elizabeth Warren.  Since 2008, she has been a powerful voice for consumers; no, she has been the most powerful voice for consumers.  And now as she races to get the new Consumer Finance Protection Board (CFPB) up and running, she faces the full court press of corporate, banking and Wall Street interests attempting to derail her.

As I learned the other day, that fight includes gender.  Preceding Professor Warren’s presentation were some remarks by Congressman Spencer Bachus, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee.  The Congressman rambled on a bit about the economy and competition and the absolute evils of regulation — nothing more than a worn out stump speech.  Most interesting was his awkward attempt to compare regulators in the U.S. to Maoist China (but that is for another day).

He saved his real ire, however, for Professor Warren. Early on in his personal attack, he called her a “lady”.  It was the word and his emphasis on the word that gave me pause.  It made two young women at my table flinch too, and they rolled their eyes as they whispered to each other.  They were young staffers of the Chamber of Commerce, so it wasn’t just me.  Mr. Bachus was using Professor Warren’s gender as an attack.  To my ears it was, "how can a lady be trusted to really understand all this important finance regulation?" or similarly, "how dare a lady tell us what to do?"  It was offensive.  And sadly the same sentiment was echoed by the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue.

Just on the other side of the Capitol, attorneys hoping to maintain their class action lawsuit on behalf of over one million past and present female employees of Walmart presented arguments to the Supreme Court.  The crux of the plaintiffs’ case is that Walmart’s management in Arkansas has an unspoken culture, a code, for favoring men over women in promotion and pay.

I admit before my visit the US Chamber of Commerce, while I was supportive of the case I remained somewhat dubious of the merits.  No more.

  • Patrick McCarthy

    Third paragraph, first sentance, it’s not quite clear to me of whom is taking advantage of said power. Its proubably just my dyslexia acting up but I feel it an important point within your essay.
    After reading twice, all said and done I really am not quite sure what your side of this debate is. I assume that you sypmathise with the woman on your left.

  • Betsy Cavendish

    Nice piece, Steve. Readers might want to listen to Cheryl Sandberg’s piece on Ted on gender discrimination and what we as women can do to succeed professionally. The stats are grim — for women in Congress, C-suites, and even as heads of nonprofits, which is maybe 20% women now. Today’s Chronicle of Philanthropy pictures six new heads of foundations — five are men. Do we women sometimes take ourselves out of the game? Surely. But is the race to succeed fully fair yet? No way. Rather than being dubious about claims of sex discrimination, we better look at the facts against a backdrop realization that sex discrimination, in forms subtle and overt, persists.

  • http://www.mesrianilaw.com/ Mesrianilaw

    Excellent post Steve and I do agree with what you’ve shared. Gender discrimination is everywhere but it is subtle — after all, there are many women who work less hours than men because of their children or other family obligations, nevertheless, it still doesn’t make it right to pay them less or overlook their career advancement or promotions especially if they’re as qualified as their peers and can perform the same or substantially equal job. There are many people who doubt the Wal-Mart class action but tell me, why is a workplace where 70 percent of its employees are women, less than a third of all its managers are females? And why do women who perform the same jobs as men paid less such as its female store managers earn an average of $89,300 annually compared to male managers who make $105,700?