This Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear the case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart, a class action lawsuit regarding alleged discrimination by the world’s largest retailer against women in regard to pay and promotion.

The case has potentially huge ramifications for class action lawsuits, equality in the workplace and Wal-Mart’s reputation. As the Bentonville behemoth deals with the media blitz surrounding the case, one is reminded that on any given day, Wal-Mart is likely dealing with a crisis somewhere in the world. From citing its superstores to consistent issues about how it treats its people, suppliers and the small businesses in its communities, Wal-Mart bashing is a popular sport. And that doesn’t even take into account the usual lists of employees behaving badly, product/service troubles and legislative/regulatory matters, and the minor acts of God that any major multinational must deal with.

Perhaps it is having to be on an almost constant crisis footing that has helped Wal-Mart set the standard for dealing with a major natural disaster. Its comprehensive and well coordinated response to Hurricane Katrina made FEMA seem downright amateurish, leading many to conclude that the Federal and State governments could learn a lot from Wal-Mart on how to prepare and deal with the next big one. The Suburban Emergency Management Project provides an incisive review of the breadth and scope of Wal-Mart emergency preparedness resources, procedures and personnel along with the actions it took before, during and after Katrina.

The devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan, showed that Wal-Mart can do crisis response on a global scale. As The Wall Street Journal points out in a fascinating article, Wal-Mart’s Arkansas-based emergency response team quickly sprang into action after the quake struck and coordinated with its operations in Hong Kong and leadership in Japan to issue alerts and updates to employees, seek accounts on the safety of all its employees and begin distributing relief supplies at its stores and myriad locations across Japan. The WSJ story also shows the diligence and creativity of Wal-Mart employees throughout Japan, the region and back in the US in delivering relief, disseminating information and ascertaining the well-being of its employees.

While few companies have the need or capabilities to build the crisis response infrastructure of Wal-Mart, all organizations should look at how the folks from Bentonville do it to understand the importance of being prepared with the right plan, tested procedures and dedicated people in place to manage a crisis. As Wal-Mart knows, your business and reputation depend on it.

rtauberman Crisis Communications Employee Discrimination, FEMA, Supreme Court, Wal-Mart

In an increasingly predictable 5-4 split, the Supreme Court today struck down a portion of the controversial Sarbanes-Oxley Act, though unanimously decided to leave the rest of the legislation intact.

The gist? The Court says the structure of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, a not-for-profit corporation with broad regulatory authority over accounting firms that audit publicly traded companies, violates separation of powers principles. Now, the Securities and Exchange Commission will have the power to boot PCAOB board members as it sees fit.

I’ll leave it to legal experts to comment on the case. But what are the reputational questions here for some of our most important institutions?

Though on the broader issue the Court was unambiguous, it was yet another predictable 5-4 ruling along the same ideological fault lines we’ve now come to expect on most major issues. Does this continued pattern diminish the credibility of one of our most revered institutions if it seems to be yet another rendition of the back-and-forth between red and blue in Congress? While I’m hardly a Constitutional scholar, I believe most people – save for the most cynical among us – think of the Court as “above” that. The question … is that changing?

Is the reputation of the federal government such that we trust it to oversee yet another body responsible for protecting the public? (I’m not even going to venture a stab at this one.) What about the reputation of the PCAOB?

Of course, the reasons the board was established – inspecting public accounting firms, enforcing ethical standards for audit reports, and punishing corruption – are right and worthy. But will those in the business community think differently of it now, though its mission of protecting the public from corruption remains?

Today I have more questions than answers. Would love to hear what you think.

cwinters General Corporate PCAOB, SOX, Supreme Court

Last week’s stunning Supreme Court decision that will now allow corporations and labor unions to spend an unlimited amount on election campaigns has sent shock waves across the political landscape with some lauding the sanctity of the First Amendment and others predicting the downfall of democracy as we know it. The case brought together an unusual coalition of the right (Chamber of Commerce) and left (ACLU) in support of scuttling McCain-Feingold. Opinions on what this will mean for the 2010 elections and beyond span a broad spectrum as Members of Congress and the Obama Administration are already debating legislative initiatives to take on the ruling.

As politicians and the pundit corps look ahead breathlessly to a new electoral dynamic, corporations need to closely review the decision and do a thorough analysis of how best to proceed. The American public is very upset and while Washington is getting the brunt of the blame, corporations are not far beyond in terms of negative sentiment. Banks, health insurers, big energy and others who are seen as the likely beneficiaries of the new spending freedom have seen their reputations battered in America’s widespread pushback against large institutions. From the Tea Party movement to the Move Your Money campaign to increased shareholder lawsuits and proxy challenges, the public is in a fighting mood.

Thus corporate boards and executives will need to proceed cautiously and judge how increased political contributions and activism will impact all of their stakeholders. Though the shackles are now off, the spotlight on corporate involvement in campaigns will be brighter. Profligate spending on election campaigns will be a focus for the media and online communities. Protecting corporate reputation, promoting the interests of shareholders and addressing consumer/public sentiment will all need to be weighed when companies make the decision to exercise the new rights bestowed on them by the Supreme Court.

Richard Tauberman can be reached at rtauberman@mww.com.

rtauberman General Corporate campaign finance, corporate boards, reputation, Supreme Court