Lawsuit Accuses Lucky of Bias Against Blacks, Women and Hispanics

A class-action lawsuit was filed Thursday against Lucky Stores, accusing the supermarket chain of systematically discriminating against women, blacks and Hispanics.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, was brought by six women who contend that they were not promoted into managerial or full-time checker positions because of their sex and--in four instances--because of their race.

Lucky, which operates 343 stores in California, recently was bought by Irvine-based American Stores Co., which also owns the Alpha Beta supermarket chain. The acquisition is awaiting final approval from the Federal Trade Commission.

Judy Decker, a spokeswoman in Lucky’s Dublin headquarters, said the supermarket chain could not comment on the allegations contained in the suit because it had not yet seen the complaint.

Northern Division Involved

“Lucky practices equal opportunity employment for all of its employees and promotes on the same basis,” Decker said.

The class-action suit involves Lucky’s Northern California division, which has 5,000 employees working in 160 stores, three distribution centers and corporate headquarters.

The lawsuit cites Equal Employment Opportunity Commission findings that between 1984 and 1986, women composed 34% of Lucky’s sales force but held only 6.5% of managerial positions, 12.4% of assistant managerial positions and 2% of night managerial positions.

At the same time, women were placed in 83.6% of deli department head positions and 89.2% of general merchandising manager positions--posts that traditionally are dead-end jobs, according to the lawsuit.

“There basically are two work forces,” said Brad Seligman, attorney for the plaintiffs. “The good-old-boy network, which is primarily white and male and which gets a disproportionate amount of promotions. Then there are the women and minorities, who are stuck in dead-end, part-time and lower-level jobs, with no way out for promotion.”

Seligman said at least four previous class-action lawsuits have been filed against Lucky for alleged racial and sexual discrimination.

$60,000 Paid to Two Women

A similar suit alleging discrimination by Lucky’s Southern California division was settled in 1986, when Lucky paid two women a total of $60,000 and agreed to adopt a 10-year affirmative action program.

According to Decker, Lucky “already had established some policies . . . to resolve the issues that were part of that case” before it was resolved by litigation.

But Seligman contends that Lucky has not made a voluntary effort to stop discriminating against women. His Oakland law firm settled a third sex-discrimination case against Lucky for $3.1 million. The case involved hiring of women for blue-collar jobs in San Leandro.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed Thursday include four current or former Lucky clerks--Nancy Stender, Diane Skillsky, Julie Valentine-Dunn and Irma Hernandez--and two first-level supervisors--Reba Barber-Money and Anita Martinez.

Seligman said Lucky offered on Wednesday to pay one of the plaintiffs $40,000 if she would quietly give up her claim against the chain and not encourage others to sue.

Decker acknowledged that the chain made such an offer but said it was to avoid the expense of fighting a lawsuit. “It was not an admission of liability,” she added.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages for lost earnings and emotional distress as well as punitive damages. It also asks that Lucky adopt an affirmative action program for all women who have been denied promotions because of their sex or race.