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 ...
Huh? What the F are you talking about?
I've heard of outlandish, irrational statements, but this takes the cake.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
In Massachusetts????
Yes in MA!
Thankfully it isn’t like that here. Not yet anyway.
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.
‘Wal-Mart Run’ now planned for today. :)
Over 2001 items are on clearance.
Excellent...
Those examples are what I was talking about — Disney was in the wrong so they settled as quietly and quickly as possible.
But there have been many cases over the years where people have stood up on rides and the like where Disney fought like maniacs. It is more a philosophy than actual execution.
To oversimplify a complex issue, there are two kinds of class actions. One requires only a common issue of law or fact, but doesn't apply to suits for money damages, only to suits seeking an injunction or a declaratory judgment. All 9 justices agreed that this case couldn't be certified under that rule (as the lower courts had permitted), because the plaintiffs were seeking backpay. (They tried to argue that backpay isn't money damages, but no justice accepted that argument).
There is a second kind of class action, in which the plaintiffs seek money damages, which also requires a common question of law or fact, but also requires several additional findings (that the class representatives are typical of the entire class; that the issues common to the whole class predominate over the issues affecting individual members; etc.). A 5-4 majority said that neither kind of class action could be certified here, because there were no common questions of law or fact. The minority said that the plaintiffs should be given a chance to try and show that they could satisfy the requirements of the second kind of class action.
I usually try to buy American instead of the Commie Chinese junk. That means until Wal-Mart starts buying from the USA they aren’t on my shopping menu. If they went bankrupt tomorrow would America be worse off or better off because of a reduced trade deficit? Either way it would be no loss to me because I don’t go there.
Girl Power sucks!
Girl Power sucks!
Girl Power sucks!
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.