Posted on 03/29/2011 3:47:37 AM PDT by 1010RD
WASHINGTON — Christine Kwapnoski hasn't done too badly in nearly 25 years in the Wal-Mart family, making more than $60,000 a year in a job she enjoys most days.
But Kwapnoski said she faced obstacles at Wal-Mart-owned Sam's Club stores in both Missouri and California: Men making more than women and getting promoted faster.
[SNIP]
The 46-year-old single mother of two is one of the named plaintiffs in a suit that will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday. At stake is whether the suit can go forward as a class action that could involve 500,000 to 1.6 million women, according to varying estimates, and potentially could cost the world's largest retailer billions of dollars.
[SNIP]
Columbia Law School professor John Coffee said that the high court could bring a virtual end to employment discrimination class actions filed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, depending on how it decides the Wal-Mart case.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagolawbulletin.com ...
Read the entire article at the site. It is a very good primer on the subject.
The site you linked was asking me to log in. Too bad, I was interested in seeing if that law professor had a good idea about ending frivolous (or gold-digging) lawsuits.
I’ve never received lower pay because of my gender, and there isn’t much evidence that it ever happens, yet it’s a popular meme among feminists. I’d like to see *that* put to rest.
RULE OF THUMB: In any class action law suit, there are 6 litigants who deserve an award and 300,000 who don’t. Class action law suits are simply a good way for lawyers to rip-off a company.
I have been an expert witness in several class action lawsuits. I learned two basic principles from these experiences. One,lawyers care little if anything about the supposed victims and two,they care a lot about their cut.
Sorry about that link. I don’t know why it asked for a password. Let me see if I can get that corrected.
I do agree that the evidence is solidly against gender discrimination at least as regards pay.
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2011/03/28/discrimination0328.aspx
Try that. It worked for me and went right to the article... Of course, I am a male. ;-]
60 thousand working for Walmart and she is suing?
What an IDIOT........
That alone proves she is being over paid!
That’s my experience too. I’ve been a participant (unknowingly) in several class actions and I’ve always gotten pennies while the attorneys walked away with the lion’s share.
Never have I ever felt justified in taking the money. The “issue” always seemed petty and never a true tort.
From the article: “Illustrating the value of class actions, Brad Seligman, the California-based lawyer who conceived of and filed the suit 10 years ago, said the average salary for a woman at Wal-Mart was $13,000, about $1,100 less than the average for a man, when the case began. “That’s hugely significant if you’re making $13,000 a year, but not enough to hire a lawyer and bring a case.”
When I first read ‘Illustraing the value of class actions’ I thought the good professor was going to talk about their value to the attorneys who take 1/3 of the pot.
He never mentioned that.
From the article: “A trial judge and the federal appeals court in San Francisco, over a fierce dissent, said the suit could go forward.
But Wal-Mart wants the high court to stop the suit in its tracks. The company argues it includes too many women with too many different positions in its 3,400 stores across the country. Wal-Mart says its policies prohibit discrimination and that most management decisions are made at the store and regional levels, not at its Bentonville, Ark., headquarters.”
It’s absurd on its face, but it came out of California so you can imagine that they carefully shopped this case.
If it goes forward it could garner nearly a billion dollars for the plaintiff’s attorneys.
“I see the White Whale...” (of course, we know how that ended)
And there lies the disconnect that people refuse to see. How much less often was she available due to family requirements? Obviously her first duty is to her children and that means the job takes the back seat.
That’s true and the fact that women and men negotiate differently. Men will walk away and say no, women negotiate from a need for security and often take the first offer.
Liberalism is all about ignoring reality... and profiting from it when possible.
How much any employee in the private sector makes should be between them and the company.
If it is to become a government matter then i think i should make as much as a GMC ceo or at least as much as a senator or a lawyer.
“attorneys who take 1/3 of the pot.”
In class actions I was under the impression that it went well beyond 1/3. In the flight attendants passive inhalation case the lawyers made millions and the attendants got a chest x-ray yearly.
That is precisely the situation. I worked for Wal-Mart for a number of years as an assistant manager. I was always encouraged to continue to move up within the company but I am a mother first. I simply could not commit to the rigorous schedule required of the next level.
The fact I was not promoted to the next level had everything to do with my choice to keep my role as mom first and my job second.
I certainly don’t think it would have been fair to my male counterparts had I been promoted without putting in the same effort and dedication. Equal pay for equal work goes both ways.
Right to the sign in page, you mean. (Typical guy).
Sorry, about that, sister! I must automatically log in on my computer.
See if this one works: http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Elements/pages/print.aspx?printpath=/Articles/2011/03/29/13460&classname=tera.GN3Article
Whoops! I meant this one:
Maybe I should just pull over and look at the map. ;-]
After reading the article, it looks exactly like the suit against Walmart is complete gold-digging.
In order to establish discrimination, one would have to show that the hourly wage of a person with x qualifications and y years of experience is different between a female and a male working the same job. None of those claiming gender based discrimination have shown such a thing.
Ruiz paints a very different picture of the opportunities offered women at Wal-Mart. She joined the company straight from college in 1992. "In less than four years, I went from an assistant manager trainee to running my own store," she said. "I'm one of thousands of women who have had a positive experience at Wal-Mart."
Looks like a pretty fast-track career to me. What's the basis of her claim of discrimination?
Simply the fact that she is a woman, from what I can understand of the case.
They're trying to use averages in statistics to prove specifics. Juries sometimes fall for that, but my hope is the SCOTUS isn't that innumerate.
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.