How Major Lawsuits Are Driving Gender Policy Reforms in the Workplace

Over the past few decades, the global workforce has witnessed a significant shift, with more women entering various industries than ever before.

According to Statista, women now make up over 40 percent of the global workforce. Yet, despite these gains, gender disparities persist. Only one-third of women occupy senior roles, and fewer than 30 percent are employed in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

This imbalance has brought workplace inequalities into sharp focus, prompting high-profile lawsuits that have exposed systemic barriers and discriminatory practices. These legal battles are driving organizations to revise policies and promote gender equity, inclusivity, and fair opportunities for women.

In this article, we’ll discuss how high-profile legal cases are driving meaningful gender policy reforms and reshaping corporate cultures.

Class Action Lawsuits and Systemic Reform

Class action lawsuits are crucial for exposing and addressing systemic gender discrimination, aggregating individual experiences to reveal undeniable patterns. This collective legal action prevents companies from dismissing issues as isolated incidents.

A prime example is the litigation against Walmart, which, despite its procedural outcome, ignited a national dialogue on unequal pay and promotions. This aligns with the impact of the #MeToo movement, which demonstrated that sexual harassment is a systemic, not just individual, issue. According to Forbes, Alyssa Milano's 'me too' tweet led to over 12 million women responding in 24 hours.

In the wake of this and other tech industry class actions, companies face legal pressure to implement major reforms. These include commitments to increase leadership diversity, mandate bias training, and establish transparent promotion criteria. Such litigation-driven mandates create a ripple effect, prompting industries to preemptively adopt similar policies to mitigate their own legal and reputational risks.

How One Lawsuit Expanded Corporate Accountability

Workplace harassment and assault lawsuits have long exposed inappropriate behavior within office environments. They have held supervisors and organizational cultures accountable for enabling abuse.

Over time, such cases have driven significant reforms, introducing mandatory training programs, stronger reporting systems, and zero-tolerance policies toward misconduct. The Uber sexual assault lawsuit has further broadened awareness of corporate responsibility beyond traditional office settings.

According to TorHoerman Law, survivors across the country are holding Uber accountable for negligence in hiring, screening, and supervising drivers. Allegations also point to ignored complaints, concealed risks, and the use of forced arbitration to limit survivors’ rights.

This high-profile case has heightened organizational awareness of the safety risks women face, particularly during work-related travel and late-night duties. In response, many companies have strengthened vetting procedures, enhanced safety protocols, and renewed their commitment to protecting all employees.

Pay Equity Litigation and Transparency Reforms

Equal pay lawsuits are a crucial force in compensation reform, challenging companies that ignore or rationalize gender wage gaps. High-profile cases expose significant disparities even within organizations committed to equality.

This pressure mandates pay equity audits, compelling companies to examine compensation across gender and race for better risk management. The lawsuit against Mastercard, for example, resulted in the company agreeing to pay $26 million and audit its employment practices.

According to Reuters, the settlement addressed claims that Mastercard systematically underpaid an estimated 7,500 female, Black, and Hispanic employees. Plaintiffs alleged that bias was compounded through smaller raises and fewer promotions.

Litigation also fuels transparency reforms, like prohibiting salary history questions and requiring pay range disclosures in job postings. These policy changes, driven by lawsuits demonstrating pervasive pay discrimination, empower workers to identify and challenge persistent systemic inequities.

Pregnancy Discrimination and Family Leave Reforms

Lawsuits concerning pregnancy discrimination and poor family leave policies are forcing employers to fix practices that hurt women's careers. Cases highlight how companies often penalize women for pregnancy or caregiving.

A key example involves Kroger, America’s largest supermarket chain, which is facing a lawsuit for allegedly sidelining a female employee after maternity leave. The case also accuses the company of denying accommodations, despite the protections guaranteed under the PWFA and the PUMP Act.

Similarly, a former Meta employee, Eunbit Cho, sued the company, alleging she faced discrimination and retaliation due to her pregnancy and related medical leave. She claimed she was fired shortly after reporting the misconduct.

Such legal challenges have driven change, pushing companies to offer paid parental leave to all employees. By framing leave as a family benefit, these reforms help counter the "motherhood penalty" and ensure career opportunities are protected for all employees who take leave.

Challenges and Limitations of Litigation as a Reform Mechanism

Despite their significant impact, lawsuits as mechanisms for gender policy reform face important limitations. Legal action is expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining for plaintiffs who often face retaliation risks and public scrutiny. Many meritorious claims never reach courtrooms due to resource constraints or mandatory arbitration agreements that shield companies from public accountability.

Additionally, even successful litigation may produce reforms that are more performative than substantive. Companies may implement training programs or policy changes that satisfy legal requirements while failing to address underlying cultural problems. Without sustained monitoring and enforcement, litigation-driven reforms can fade over time as attention shifts elsewhere.

The adversarial nature of litigation can also create defensive organizational postures that inhibit genuine learning and cultural change. When companies treat discrimination as a legal risk, reforms focus on compliance, not real change.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main reason for gender inequality in the workplace?

The main reason for gender inequality in the workplace is systemic bias rooted in traditional gender roles and stereotypes. These biases influence hiring, pay, promotion, and leadership opportunities, often undervaluing women’s contributions. Additionally, inadequate family leave policies and unequal caregiving expectations further hinder women’s career advancement and representation in senior roles.

What is the Walmart lawsuit about gender discrimination?

The Walmart gender discrimination lawsuit involved allegations that the company systematically denied women equal pay and promotion opportunities. Filed on behalf of thousands of female employees, it claimed Walmart’s policies favored men in advancement and compensation. Though the Supreme Court decertified the class, the case spotlighted widespread workplace gender bias.

What protections cover employees who report gender discrimination or join lawsuits?

Federal and state laws prohibit retaliation against employees who report discrimination or participate in investigations and legal proceedings. Protected activities include filing complaints, testifying, or assisting with investigations. Document everything and consult legal counsel if you experience retaliation after reporting discrimination.

Major lawsuits have not only exposed systemic gender bias but also accelerated meaningful workplace reforms. From pay equity and family leave to harassment prevention, legal action continues to shape corporate accountability. True progress, however, depends on organizations viewing equality as a shared value and not just a legal obligation.