New York times drops bombshell in Dukes v WalMart.

The New York Times Thursday ran this piece http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/business/04lawsuit.html?pagewanted=1&src=busln

The article dealt with a new development in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart class action--a confidential report was leaked to the Times. Apparently, Wal-Mart hired Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld to analyze the business for vulnerability to discrimination actions. The firm submitted a report warning Wal-Mart that it had serious gender disparities in pay and promotion, and it recommended the company take steps like posting for promotions. Walmart however being to busy union busting ignored the report that they paid for. From the story:
Without significant changes, the lawyers said in their confidential analysis, Wal-Mart “would find it difficult to fashion a persuasive explanation for disproportionate employment patterns.”

1. Akin Gump estimated that for 1993 alone, Wal-Mart’s potential legal exposure in a class-action sex discrimination suit was $185 million to $740 million.

2. Wal-Mart criticized Akin Gump’s methodology, saying it had deliberately mimicked the type of statistical analysis done by plaintiffs’ lawyers in class-action cases. {What arrogant Nazi cbg types are we looking at this piss poor business model} {} mine

3. And in June 2002, Wal-Mart’s senior vice president for human resources sent a memorandum voicing alarm that “we do not have a poster, brochure” that explained “how to get promoted into the management training program,” according to documents in the case.

JoeC (McGruff)