Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T03:52:02.783Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Corporate Politics, Rationalization, and Managerial Discretion: EEOC v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2009

Robert L. Nelson
Affiliation:
American Bar Foundation Chicago and Northwestern University, Illinois
William P. Bridges
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Chicago
Get access

Summary

We now turn to patterns of gender inequality in pay in private sector organizations. The first case we consider is the massive litigation brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Sears, Roebuck and Company, at that time the largest retailer of general merchandise in the United States.

Sears employed some 380,000 workers in over 4,000 facilities in 1986 (Sears I, p. 1288; for abbreviations, see the appendix on court documents and case materials). A sophisticated personnel department had been in existence for several decades that ran training programs, regularly collected attitudinal and performance data about employees, and administered batteries of psychological tests used for hiring and promotion decisions. Yet Sears had been built on an ideology of decentralized management. Group, territorial, and store managers had largely unchecked authority in many organizational functions. Among the most significant was discretion in setting the salaries of more than 18,000 middle-level managers and supervisors who reported to them – a group known as “checklist” employees.

In the 1970s the highly decentralized character of Sears's personnel and compensation policies came under internal and external attack. Although Sears had adopted an affirmative action program in 1968, in 1973 the EEOC filed administrative charges of sex discrimination against the company. Perhaps in response to the threat of government sanction, top management made the program mandatory in 1974. Company officials ordered that one out of every two lower-level (known as time-card) positions be filled by women or minorities.

Type
Chapter
Information
Legalizing Gender Inequality
Courts, Markets and Unequal Pay for Women in America
, pp. 203 - 243
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×