This paper examines the gender discrimination class action lawsuit filed against Walmart by three female employees in Tennessee (Phipps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.), focusing on the nature of the discriminatory practices alleged, their legal and ethical dimensions, and the financial and reputational consequences for the company. The paper outlines preventive measures Walmart could have implemented, identifies resources available to employers for legal compliance, and recommends alternative dispute resolution strategies — including mediation and internal complaints procedures — as preferable to costly and damaging public litigation. The case serves as a broader lesson about the importance of equal opportunity compliance in corporate management.
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: it uses a specific legal dispute (Phipps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) as a vehicle for exploring broader principles of employment law compliance, business ethics, and conflict resolution. By weaving together factual case details, statutory references (EEOC guidelines), and scholarly recommendations (Stamato, 2000), the paper shows how to synthesize multiple source types to support a practical argument.
The paper follows a problem-solution structure. It opens by framing gender discrimination as a business risk, then presents the case facts, identifies the specific conduct that gave rise to liability, explores what the company should have done differently, surveys available compliance resources, assesses consequences, and closes with settlement and reform recommendations. Each section builds logically on the last, maintaining a consistent argumentative thread throughout.
Gender discrimination is a business pitfall that can result in hazardous, time-consuming, and expensive lawsuits. Today, businesses and managers need to be fully aware of the legal implications of perceived differences in how employees are treated. For this reason, specific safeguards can be implemented to prevent the hazards associated with gender discrimination lawsuits. In the event that a suit has already been filed, businesses can also enter into alternative settlement negotiations, which would avoid the public — and potentially scandalous — nature of a court proceeding.
One example of such a case is the class action suit brought by three women in Tennessee against Walmart, citing continuous and consistent gender discrimination. Without recourse to alternative settlement choices and reform efforts, the danger for Walmart is a tarnished reputation as an unequal employer, along with significant losses in terms of time and money.
The lawsuit was brought in Nashville, Tennessee, with the charge that Walmart Stores, Inc. discriminated against female employees in its regional group of stores centered in Tennessee (Business Wire, 2012). Specifically, the complaint was filed as Phipps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The purpose of the suit was to compel the company to end its discriminatory practices, particularly with regard to salaries and promotions.
Interestingly, the case was the third regional lawsuit of its kind against the retailer, implying that store managers had been engaging in conduct that gave rise to multiple similar legal actions. The suit in Tennessee was filed by Cheryl Phipps, Bobbi Millner, and Shawn Gibbons — all three of whom had been employees at the company for eleven or more years. The plaintiffs claimed that women at the company had been subjected to denial of equal pay and equal promotion opportunities, and that many had waited more than a decade for their complaints to reach a courtroom.
The actions that led to the case included significantly lower salaries for women holding both salaried and hourly positions at stores in the region compared to their male counterparts. On average, the female plaintiffs demonstrated greater seniority and higher performance ratings than the higher-earning male employees they were compared against. Furthermore, regional and district senior management had been receiving regular reports about the generally lower compensation for female employees and had chosen to ignore them.
Cheryl Phipps, for example, had extensive retail experience but was nonetheless denied entry into the Management Trainee Program at Walmart. The district manager falsely claimed she was not qualified for the management position, while a less competent male coworker was admitted to the program. The other plaintiffs reported similar experiences at their respective workplaces within the region. These patterns of conduct — ignored reports, denied promotions, and unequal pay — collectively formed the basis of the discrimination claims brought before the court.
Walmart can ill afford the legal, financial, and reputational implications of a lawsuit involving discriminatory practices. Its reputation has already been significantly tarnished by similar legal action in the past. It is therefore recommended that the matter be settled out of court, accompanied by a long-term action plan to implement internal structures through which employees can raise complaints and obtain appropriate restitution when required. Proactive compliance with federal anti-discrimination law, combined with meaningful internal reform, represents the most viable path forward for the company.
Business Wire. (2012, October 2). Barrett Johnson, LLC: Wal-Mart women file class action lawsuit in Tennessee Federal Court. Retrieved from
Legal Momentum: Advancing Women's Rights. (2005). Legal resource kit: Sex discrimination and sexual harassment in employment. Retrieved from
Stamato, L. (2000). Dispute resolution and the glass ceiling: Ending sexual discrimination at the top. Retrieved from
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2009, November 21). Federal laws prohibiting job discrimination. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.