Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Walmart wins sex discrimination case
FT.com ^ | June 20 2011 | Barney Jopson

Posted on 06/20/2011 9:21:09 AM PDT by facedown

Walmart has scored a crucial victory in the world’s largest sex discrimination case after the US Supreme Court threw out a class action lawsuit against it that sought to encompass more than 1m people.

The decision is likely to have wide-ranging implications for the course of legal disputes between big business and workers in the US because it will establish new standards plaintiffs must meet in order to mount class actions.

Walmart was accused by six plaintiffs of paying women in the US less than men and of passing them over for promotion, but they had sought to represent a larger group of current and former female employees estimated to number up to 1.5m.

(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: discrimination; lawsuit; ruling; scotus; ussc; walmart; workplace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
A unanimous decision!
1 posted on 06/20/2011 9:21:13 AM PDT by facedown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: facedown
A unanimous decision!

Even the "wise latina".

2 posted on 06/20/2011 9:28:05 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Misleading headline. This was regarding whether to certify the actions as a class-action only. Individuals will still be able to sue on the merits of individual cases, just not in a class-action.


3 posted on 06/20/2011 9:32:43 AM PDT by ilovesarah2012
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012
Individuals will still be able to sue on the merits of individual cases, just not in a class-action.

Much of the discussion this morning has been about how expensive it will be for WM to fight these individual court battles. Speculation is they will be forced to settle most of them.

I want to know how all those women are paying their legal costs. Is the ACLU paying for the lawyers? Ummmm, excuse me. Are you and I paying the ACLU to pay for their lawyers? When the defense is "free", claimants can keep it in court ad infinitum!

4 posted on 06/20/2011 9:39:09 AM PDT by REPANDPROUDOFIT (General, Sir, it is perfectly ok to call me "Ma'am"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

>>relax and help him by telling people about him, thats what Cain supporters are busy doing now :)<<

But the implications for WalMart are massive. Individually, they can easily take on the cases. It will be swatting at fleas, using their existing resources. They will lose a few, win most.

If this class action had proceeded it could have cost WalMart billions.


5 posted on 06/20/2011 9:40:35 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

“Misleading headline. This was regarding whether to certify the actions as a class-action only. Individuals will still be able to sue on the merits of individual cases, just not in a class-action.”

Not to mention there were a number of ancillary issues that Walmart barely won by a 5-4 vote. For instance, the Marxist Four wanted to send the class action lawsuit back to the lower court to be amended with a different “legal theory” and allowed to proceed from there. Fortunately, the five good folk on the court threw the whole thing out, sending the plaintiffs back to below square zero in starting over if they so choose. That would mean another 10 years to get back to the Supreme Court with a far more limited claim, not to mention no fees for at least 20 years from when the first suit started.


6 posted on 06/20/2011 9:46:54 AM PDT by catnipman (Cat Nipman: Made from the right stuff!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

They’d make up for the loss by buying more crap from China.


7 posted on 06/20/2011 9:47:41 AM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: facedown
We are not equal....none of us....There are both good and bad male and female employees.

Our Walmart hires a lot of women I wouldn't even think of hiring. In fact, I see no male employees at all. Clerical is clerical. It's not rocket science. It's a low paying, boring job. And most of us did it at some point.

8 posted on 06/20/2011 9:49:58 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: REPANDPROUDOFIT
It's a large mistake to think that ‘women’ and the ACLU
righteously attacked WM. It was a big labor move, as
all previous attempts to get the work force at WM to
unionize. It's Big Labor that hates WM, using
women employees - (who probably were paid potted plants)to
bring grief and financial ruin to WM. They will try again.
Past action against the fact that some WM’s sold guns and ammo were beat back. Maybe it will be Big Gov that will
attack the pharmacy at my WM... who knows, but WM has too many employees, with possible union dues, to be ignored by Big Labor. No wonder “card check” is #1 issue with
Big Labor.
9 posted on 06/20/2011 10:02:23 AM PDT by seenenuf ( PREPARE TO BE TESTED!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Most of the employees at the Walmart I frequent are non or barely English speaking women. The only English they know how to say is - “I not speak English”. (I’m guessing they know a little more English than they let on)


10 posted on 06/20/2011 10:03:30 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Thank goodness for America no little Chinese girls were permitted by Wal-Mart’s manufacturers to stand trial. Time to Wave Old Glory! (The little buggers did do a lovely job on this one over here, didn’t they? And what a price!)


11 posted on 06/20/2011 10:10:51 AM PDT by golux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seenenuf

I find it ironic that Big Labor, and its Marxist puppeteers, are trying to kill Wal Mart simply because it’s big and nonunion.

These ideological whackos refuse to acknowledge the fact that Wal Mart hires many folks from poor areas and sells poor people nice quality stuff they can afford.

It’s good the SC knocked the class action down. Let these allegedly wronged women sue individually and see what happens. I wonder if ACLU will stick by them if they do.


12 posted on 06/20/2011 10:12:14 AM PDT by dools0007world
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: facedown

I’m glad we have a semi-majority in the Supreme Court. (Kennedy trends right but will occassionally go left field)
That said this is case is just a horrible piece of crap. It started with a woman who just thought that if she just stayed around long enough she’d move up. Sometimes that does happen but when it doesn’t it does not mean you are being treated unfairly. A part of getting promoted is attitude and many of these women have hurt themselves with their I’m a single Mom you have to promote me no matter how big a pain in the ass I’ll be. Life doesn’t work that way. Sometimes people will cut you a break but the best thing to do if you don’t feel you are getting a fair shake is to leave or transfer and don’t give me the crap that you just can’t. That is just a cop-out. I’ve left jobs, I’ve been layed off, that it is not easy but since when is it supposed to be? If you won’t take advantage of the freedoms you have then stay where you are. You have the job and the position you deserve because no one deserves to be made into a millionaire because they didn’t get a promotion they felt they should get. These women should grow up. Wal-Mart has countless women in high positions within the company but the difference is those women who have those positions know how to groom themselves something that even the men are required to do. I just don’t understand it. If you are so small that you can’t do the basic simple things then how in the hell do you think anyone is going to promote you? I swear adults today are just babies. They don’t need a promotion they need a bottle and a diaper.


13 posted on 06/20/2011 10:19:35 AM PDT by Maelstorm (Better to keep your enemy in your sights than in your camp expecting him to guard your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

Most of the women Walmart hires are not qualified to do much more. I wonder how many of those suing had college degrees and were passed over for management positions....


14 posted on 06/20/2011 10:33:24 AM PDT by MissEdie (America went to the polls on 11-4-08 and all we got was a socialist thug and a dottering old fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: facedown

I hate to think what will happen if one of the so called “conservative justices” dies or is incapacitated and we have a Democrat in the white house. They have to live at least another 12 months.


15 posted on 06/20/2011 10:37:14 AM PDT by Uncle Hal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Reported on CBS radio this morning-without saying “Wal-Mart”!


16 posted on 06/20/2011 11:02:23 AM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Apparently even the liberals on the SCOTUS could see this was just an effort by trial lawyers to fill their own pockets at Walmart’s expense. The BEST ruling would have included an order to the plaintiffs to pay the defendent’s costs...


17 posted on 06/20/2011 11:23:43 AM PDT by American Quilter (Take back the White House and Senate in 2012--end the Obama Depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ilovesarah2012

This decision kills the “coupon settlement” firms who made their stock and trade on certifying ridiculous class actions.


18 posted on 06/20/2011 11:33:05 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Maelstorm

The communists believe all business should be profit prohibited.


19 posted on 06/20/2011 11:37:56 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Just think of all the disappointed parasites that thought they had finally found their free ride. Been looking for their “ticket” for years...


20 posted on 06/20/2011 11:50:34 AM PDT by jacknhoo (Luke 12:51. Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown

email from the NAGS on the topic:

Dear Supporter,

After 10 long years, a final decision has been handed down in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the largest class-action lawsuit in our nation’s history. It’s not good.

Today, a Supreme Court majority ruled against women by siding with the country’s largest employment discriminator, saying Wal-Mart, essentially, is too big to sue. The brave women, led by Betty Dukes, who stood up to Wal-Mart at great personal sacrifice, were told simply they’re on their own.

NOW has been fighting Wal-Mart’s efforts to systematically dole out pay raises and promotions on the basis of sex for 10 years, and we’re willing to keep it up for 100 more if that’s what it takes. Will you donate to NOW today to help us secure justice for women workers?

NOW leaders and their allies are already taking action. Tomorrow, women’s rights activists will denounce the Supreme Court’s decision in cities around the country, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. Donate today to help NOW keep up our fight for economic justice for all women.

We can and will undo the damage of this decision. Its cold illogic — that the bigger a corporation is, the less it need fear being held accountable in a court of law — must be overturned in the halls of Congress. We are redoubling our efforts to pass a meaningful Paycheck Fairness Act, which would provide more effective remedies for victims of sex-based wage discrimination.

Your donation will help us achieve our goals. Please stand with us as we stand with the women of Wal-Mart. Make as generous a donation today as you can.

In solidarity,

Terry O’Neill
NOW President

P.S. Ten years ago NOW declared Wal-Mart a Merchant of Shame, and our chapters have an extensive history of picketing stores around the country. Please donate today to keep NOW, the grassroots arm of the women’s movement, strong and loud.


21 posted on 06/20/2011 11:53:35 AM PDT by Gopher Broke (Repeal Obamacare !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: REPANDPROUDOFIT

taxpayers fund “Legal Aid” and much of this goes to leftist groups


22 posted on 06/20/2011 11:53:57 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Excellent!!


23 posted on 06/20/2011 12:03:37 PM PDT by evad (Obama needs to show us his green card)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golux

What????


24 posted on 06/20/2011 12:11:52 PM PDT by dirtymac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: facedown

At first I thought I was going to see those “faces of Walmart” pictures here....


25 posted on 06/20/2011 12:22:06 PM PDT by b4its2late (Ignorance allows liberalism to prosper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

Open letter to NOW:

What are you doing for our sisters in Muslim Countries? Or in Muslim Enclaves here in the USA? Are you standing against forced child marriage, female servitude, slavery, clitorectomies, honor killings, physical abuse, harassment, mental cruelty, and general suppression of any freedom at all for women and girls who are enslaved by this 8th Century System of Sharia Law?

(crickets)


26 posted on 06/20/2011 12:48:50 PM PDT by left that other site
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: seenenuf
I'm a little confused by your reply. Is Big Labor paying the legal bills for the women employees (or potted plants, good one)?

I know when blacks file a race discrimination suit, many of them can retain lawyers from the ACLU for "free", meaning you and I are required to finance such cases with our taxpayer money. Because the plaintiff has nothing invested in the cost of the trial, there is no reason to care how long it goes on or how expensive it gets. I posted because I wondered if the ACLU might be representing these women. In other words, are you and I are paying to attack WM!?

I don't understand your statement about the pharmacy and Big Gov.

27 posted on 06/20/2011 1:30:13 PM PDT by REPANDPROUDOFIT (General, Sir, it is perfectly ok to call me "Ma'am"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: REPANDPROUDOFIT

If it involves WM outside cash to fund these lawsuits most likely comes from Big Labor also. I suspect they help bankroll these types of actions.


28 posted on 06/20/2011 1:37:12 PM PDT by matt04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003; ilovesarah2012; REPANDPROUDOFIT

This is a massive victory, not just for Wal-Mart, but our entire country. It turns back a lot of issues that cause these lawsuits. See more here:

http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Elements/pages/print.aspx?printpath=/Articles/2011/06/20/15139&classname=tera.GN3Article

From that article: “In a decision written by Justice Antonin G. Scalia, the court held that the plaintiffs’ “only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist’s analysis asserting that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias.”

Because the sociologist couldn’t say “whether 0.5 percent or 95 percent of the employment decisions at Wal-Mart might be determined by stereotyped thinking … we can safely disregard what he has to say,” Scalia wrote.

The court’s decision also rejected statistical and anecdotal evidence provided by the plaintiffs as too weak to demonstrate that Wal-Mart acted against the plaintiffs in a way that applies “generally to the class.”

The court’s ruling is “a win for employers,” according to Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Laura J. Maechtlen, partners at Seyfarth, Shaw LLP, commenting on the ruling. They were not part of the litigation.

“In short, the Supreme Court’s opinion repositions the goal posts on the playing fields of how workplace class actions are structured, defended and litigated,” Maatman and Maechtlen wrote in The Workplace Class Action Blog.

The plaintiffs’ attorneys issued a statement saying, “the plaintiffs are disappointed by the sharply divided decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court today reversing class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.

“The court’s ruling erects substantially higher barriers for working women and men to vindicate rights to be free from employment discrimination. The ruling does not, however, address whether Wal-Mart committed sex discrimination against its women employees.”

This is a massive win. Come on conservatives, we keep winning, let’s take Congress and the WH next.


29 posted on 06/20/2011 2:30:59 PM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: facedown
Bad day all around for Libtards.
30 posted on 06/20/2011 2:39:52 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

>>The plaintiffs’ attorneys issued a statement saying, “the plaintiffs are disappointed by the sharply divided decision issued by the U.S. Supreme Court today reversing class certification in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.<<

Great analysis, 1010RD — your summary is dead on and, yes, finally large business can breathe a small sigh of relief that some broad with her knickers in a twist can’t get her fellow hens together and threaten the company with a class action suit.

But you gotta wonder what the plaintiffs’ attorneys were smoking when they spun a UNANIMOUS ruling (even the “wise latina”) into “sharply divided.”

Do they think people are that stupid? (self-answer: yes)

Thanks again for putting it all together so neatly.


31 posted on 06/20/2011 3:14:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

It will be harder for individuals to file suit. Lawyers will want to be paid up front, unlike class action suits..


32 posted on 06/20/2011 3:21:12 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: facedown

Good for Walmart - good for the USA...


33 posted on 06/20/2011 3:22:48 PM PDT by GOPJ (In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act. - - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: facedown
A unanimous decision!

Did you read the article?

The workers “provide no convincing proof of a company-wide discriminatory pay and promotion policy”, wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for five members of the court. The justices were unanimous on some parts of the case and divided on others.

34 posted on 06/20/2011 3:29:58 PM PDT by upchuck (Think you know hardship? Ha! Wait till the dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goat granny

>>t will be harder for individuals to file suit. Lawyers will want to be paid up front, unlike class action suits..<<

And those suits are a matter of daily business with W/M — slip and fall, product problems, etc., W/M probably handles thousands of cases a year. These will be just tossed into the hopper.

Disney still has the reputation of never settling — you need to be 1000% in the clear before you file or Disney will use every resource at its disposal to crush you. And then go after sanctions on the attorneys who filed.

Litigiousness isn’t always its own reward.

And now I heard on FNN that many of the cases, being 10 years old, may be moot or impossible for the litigants to pursue (people left the company, died, policies can’t be proven, paperwork gone, etc.).

The unions sold these womyn a bill of goods — now they have no jobs, no prospects, they are radioactive for employment: they have NOTHING.

Justice is sweet.


35 posted on 06/20/2011 3:32:00 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: upchuck; facedown

>>The justices were unanimous on some parts of the case and divided on others.<<

U/C: I know you weren’t posting to me, but I stand somewhat corrected on my similar post upthread.

BUT, they RULED unanimously and “unanimous on some parts of the case and divided on others” <> “sharply divided” in any possible interpretation of the meaning of the latter...


36 posted on 06/20/2011 3:35:13 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (Herman Cain 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: American Quilter
Apparently even the liberals on the SCOTUS could see this was just an effort by trial lawyers to fill their own pockets at Walmart’s expense.

The Liberal Justices agreed that the plaintiffs had been certified as the wrong type of class, but dissented from the majority's ruling that there should not have been any class certification.

Read Post #6.

37 posted on 06/20/2011 3:38:10 PM PDT by Repeal 16-17 (Let me know when the Shooting starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

I work with many women who are overpaid just to prevent lawsuits; they are underqualified, and barely work enough hours to qualify for benefits (but they receive them). These aren’t even cases where they rush home to care for a family; these are post-modern eunuchs that simply can’t focus on anything but entertaining themselves (and eating). I’d think many suits of this type can be tossed on real evidence (hours worked, including overtime - this can’t be overlooked when seeking to promote someone, as well as keystrokes, time spent surfing the web, etc.). Facts speak for themselves.

On the flip side, I have worked with some women who were as cometent & hard-working as any man; they deserved the promotions & pay they received.


38 posted on 06/20/2011 4:41:17 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30
They’d make up for the loss by buying more crap from China.

Absolutely true, and if folks think they're facing sex discrimination at Walmart here in the USA, give this story a read about sex discrimination in the Chinese workplace. No permission from the boss? Don't even think of getting pregnant.

39 posted on 06/20/2011 8:09:18 PM PDT by kittycatonline.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MissEdie

That is really insulting & demeaning to the women who work at Walmart, most of whom have a ton of more class than you are showing in your remarks.

Maybe if you actually spent some time getting to know them you might actually learn something, instead of spouting off about people you don’t know a thing about who you see as “beneath you.”


40 posted on 06/20/2011 9:42:16 PM PDT by Left2Right (Starve the Beast!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MissEdie
Most of the women Walmart hires are not qualified to do much more.

Huh? What the F are you talking about?

I've heard of outlandish, irrational statements, but this takes the cake.

41 posted on 06/20/2011 9:51:21 PM PDT by MrsEmmaPeel (a government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Gopher Broke

Hmmm... I guess all that fighting Wal-Mart stuff kept the NOW gang from forming an opinion about Anthony Weiner. Oh well... I suppose there’s only some much time in a day.


42 posted on 06/20/2011 10:44:04 PM PDT by Redcloak (What's your zombie plan?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Right on, Walmart! The Clueless/uneducated Libs won’t/Can’t comprehend this......but it is SUCH a good thing. Thank you Walmart for ALL you do! No one gets to be #1 in the world’s retail without huge contributions to the world. Thank you.


43 posted on 06/20/2011 10:46:29 PM PDT by NoRedTape
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: All
I'm hoping that someone can help me understand this ruling.

As I read it, all 9 justices agreed that the case could not legally proceed as a class action suit.

A majority of 5 justices agreed that the reason that it could not proceed is because of the large number of plaintiffs, and their differing situations; not enough commonality between the plaintiff's situations to qualify as a class action suit.

My question is, if the 4 justices in the minority agreed that the case could not proceed, yet they disagreed with the reasoning of the majority, what reasoning did they cite for not allowing the case to proceed as a class action?

44 posted on 06/20/2011 11:24:30 PM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1010RD

Listening to some of the liberal media last night - every one of them introduced the story saying Walmart was being sued for discriminating against women. The story was set up as a fallacy from the beginning. The women were claiming that Walmart’s corporate environment MIGHT ALLOW for discrimination to take place! They never claimed actual incidences of discrimination.


45 posted on 06/21/2011 3:24:45 AM PDT by REPANDPROUDOFIT (General, Sir, it is perfectly ok to call me "Ma'am"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: REPANDPROUDOFIT

Walmart is hated because it benefits the poor through low prices, the unemployable through jobs and women and minorities through real opportunity.

Liberals hate success outside of their control.

As for the reportage. We’re winning. When the other side has to lie to get its way they’re losing, big time.


46 posted on 06/21/2011 4:19:29 AM PDT by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby
"Most of the employees at the Walmart I frequent are non or barely English speaking women."

In Massachusetts????

47 posted on 06/21/2011 4:49:48 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (NO MORE SECOND TERMS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Past Your Eyes

Yes in MA!


48 posted on 06/21/2011 4:50:36 AM PDT by rockabyebaby (We are sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo screwed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: rockabyebaby

Thankfully it isn’t like that here. Not yet anyway.


49 posted on 06/21/2011 5:36:42 AM PDT by Past Your Eyes (NO MORE SECOND TERMS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Washi
I'm hoping that someone can help me understand this ruling.

As I read it, all 9 justices agreed that the case could not legally proceed as a class action suit.

A majority of 5 justices agreed that the reason that it could not proceed is because of the large number of plaintiffs, and their differing situations; not enough commonality between the plaintiff's situations to qualify as a class action suit.

My question is, if the 4 justices in the minority agreed that the case could not proceed, yet they disagreed with the reasoning of the majority, what reasoning did they cite for not allowing the case to proceed as a class action?

Bumping my own question to the daytime crowd.

50 posted on 06/21/2011 5:44:14 AM PDT by Washi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson