May 29 (Bloomberg) -- Wal-Mart Stores Inc., defending against dozens of wage suits and the biggest discrimination complaint on record, faces pressure to settle with fired marketing chief Julie Roehm after she said executives violated company policy.

Roehm, 36, said last month that she wants company executives deposed, including Chief Executive Officer H. Lee Scott and a technician fired for allegedly conducting unauthorized surveillance for the company, the world's largest retailer. Last week, Roehm accused Scott, 58, and other executives in court papers of accepting discounts and gifts from a vendor.

``Given all the other litigation, Wal-Mart might want to settle,'' said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia. Other lawyers said future court filings may contain more allegations. ``Wal-Mart needs to consider the cost, in dollars and to its reputation,'' Tobias said.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley declined to comment. Roehm's attorneys Sam Morgan and John Schaefer didn't return calls for comment yesterday.

Wal-Mart fired Roehm without saying why in December and dropped the advertising agency she'd selected. Roehm then sued the Bentonville, Arkansas, retailer for breach of contract and fraud. Wal-Mart countersued in March, accusing Roehm of taking gifts from DraftFCB, the agency she had hired, and of having an affair with a subordinate.

Roehm has asked for an unspecified amount of damages, plus punitive damages. Wal-Mart said in court papers that Roehm wants at least $1.5 million in salary and other payments.

Roehm's suit, filed in a Port Huron, Michigan, federal court, is one of more than 250 complaints by employees in federal courts since January 2005. Other lawsuits include allegations of bias and violations of wage-and-hour regulations.

Millions in Damages

Since December 2005, juries in Pennsylvania and California have awarded Wal-Mart workers a total of $251 million in pay and damages over claims the company broke wage laws.

The company faces a trial in Minnesota in September by hourly workers in a class-action lawsuit. The case is among more than 70 alleging Wal-Mart failed to pay employees for the hours they worked or didn't compensate them properly for overtime.

Wal-Mart is already under pressure from investors led by the New York City comptroller, who is demanding a vote at Wal- Mart's next shareholder meeting that would force a review of its treatment of workers.

Further attention will probably hurt Wal-Mart, said Cyrus Mehri of Mehri & Skalet in Washington, who represents employees in workers' rights litigation.

``The company is in a fishbowl,'' Mehri said.

`At a Disadvantage'

``Wal-Mart is already at a disadvantage in the eye of the all-important consumer and potential shareholder base because their reputation isn't squeaky clean,'' said Patricia Edwards, a Seattle-based money manager at Wentworth, Hauser & Violich, whose $9.6 billion in assets include Wal-Mart shares. ``The best outcome they could possibly achieve would be for this situation to just go away.''

Roehm's lawyers said in court papers last month they intend to depose ``any and all current or former employees and/or agents of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,'' including Scott, Raul Vazquez, CEO of walmart.com, and Bruce Gabbard, a Wal-Mart technician fired this year on allegations of unauthorized surveillance of people including employees, critics and shareholders.

In papers last week, Roehm accused executives of accepting free plane travel and concert tickets. Scott, she charged, received discounts on yachts and a pink diamond from companies owned by Irwin Jacobs, which do business with Wal-Mart.

One Jacobs company, Plymouth, Minnesota-based Jacobs Trading Co., buys and sells leftover merchandise from stores including Wal-Mart. It employs Scott's son Eric as a consultant.

Hiring Complications

Jacobs and Simley previously denied Roehm's claims.

Wal-Mart should consider the effect the suit will have on recruiting top managers, Tobias said.

``This kind of litigation would complicate Wal-Mart's ability to hire top-line executives,'' Tobias said. ``Especially if they thought they would be fired after a short period on the job and then be accused of improper behavior.''

David Berg, a Houston attorney, argues the company shouldn't settle the lawsuit immediately -- perhaps not at all - - because settling now makes the company ``look guilty as charged.''

``You don't do it with a gun at your head,'' he said. Roehm's lawyers may find weaknesses in their own case, making them likely to settle for less, Berg said.

`A Pox'

Wal-Mart may win at trial if its claims against Roehm are true, even if her allegations are valid, Berg said. A jury is likely to say, ``a pox on both your houses,'' he said.

Wal-Mart, which has denied any discrimination or violation of overtime laws, is fighting the class-action wage cases. It settled some employee lawsuits. It's appealing the Pennsylvania and California verdicts.

The company is also defending a case brought on behalf of two million female workers who say Wal-Mart denied them equal pay and promotions. Simley has said the company will fight Roehm in court.

``Both sides are playing hardball in this litigation,'' Tobias said. ``Wal-Mart conducts much litigation that way.''

The case is Roehm v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 07-CV-10168, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Port Huron).

To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Cronin Fisk in Southfield, Michigan, at mcfisk@bloomberg.net; Lauren Coleman-Lochner in New York at llochner@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: May 29, 2007 00:03 EDT