BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
DALLAS—Plaintiffs in the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. gender discrimination case brought in Texas in October filed an amended, expanded complaint on Thursday.
The new filing is the latest development in litigation originally filed in 2001 alleging that Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart promoted and paid female employees less than men, even when female workers had higher performance ratings and more seniority.
Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against a proposed class of some 1.5 million members nationwide in Betty Dukes et al. vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., arguing that the nationwide class of plaintiffs did not have enough in common to pursue the lawsuit.
The Texas case, Stephanie Odle et al. vs. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., was filed in federal court in Dallas.
According to a statement by the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the revised complaint “expands the case by charging widespread denial of equal pay to female employees, and cites specific examples of biased statements by Wal-Mart’s senior managers.”
The plaintiffs are represented in the Texas litigation by Dallas-based Gillespie, Rozen & Watsky P.C.; Santa Fe, N.M.-based The Tinkler Law Firm; Santa Fe-based Bennett Law Firm; Berkley, Calif.-based The Impact Fund; and Washington-based Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C.
Meanwhile, in a filing in federal court in San Francisco on Wednesday, Wal-Mart argued in favor of dismissing litigation that was refiled in October on behalf of 90,000 current and former female workers in California.