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 ...
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.
taxpayers fund “Legal Aid” and much of this goes to leftist groups
Excellent!!
What????
At first I thought I was going to see those “faces of Walmart” pictures here....
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)
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.
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.
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:
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.
>>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.
It will be harder for individuals to file suit. Lawyers will want to be paid up front, unlike class action suits..
Good for Walmart - good for the USA...
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.
>>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.
>>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...
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.