The Wal-Mart sex discrimination case is one of a growing number of cases in which plaintiff's firms are forming joint ventures to sue employers and other corporate defendants, "often pairing nonprofits with more materially minded private lawyers". A big advantage of the latter approach, openly boasted of by some of its strategists: you can sell the lawsuit to the public as motivated by a selfless concern with fighting discrimination rather than the chasing of fees, even if many of the private firms involved in the action are indeed known for chasing fees. (Nathan Koppel, "Wal-Mart Suit Will Test Alliance of Public and Private Firms", The American Lawyer, Aug. 10). Only days later, an AP reporter obediently portrayed the Wal-Mart suit -- which is being pushed by four plaintiff's firms including Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll -- as all about idealism rather than money (David Kravets, "Attorney suing Wal-Mart sees justice, not dollar signs", AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 22).
Employment suits, for profit or not?
Related Entries:
- Hans Bader on EU's proposed gender quotas for corporate boards
- EEOC: discrimination against criminals is illegal
- Hans Bader uncovers a Catch-22 in EEOC enforcement
- Around the web, August 31
- Self-parody NY Times op-ed department: "Ugly? You May Have A Case"
- Bloomberg win on EEOC work/life balance suit
- Hymowitz on the gender gap
- Damned if you do files: Briscoe v. New Haven
- Around the web, August 15
- Jamie Leigh Jones lawsuit falling apart
- Podcast on Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- Does Title VII require work-life balance? II
- Does Title VII require work-life balance?
- But buttons that say $1.08 wouldn't be helpful
- EEOC challenges use of credit history in hiring
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Bridget Carroll Press Officer, Manhattan Institute bcarroll@manhattan-institute.org |



