Posted on 06/20/2011 9:13:07 AM PDT by rellimpank
— The Supreme Court blocked the largest sexual-discrimination lawsuit ever from proceeding as a class action on Monday, handing a victory to Wal-Mart in a case that pitted the massive retailer against millions of its female employees.
The court’s decision could have broad implications for workers seeking jointly to sue their employers.
The justices overturned an earlier U.S. appeals court ruling that gave class-action status to 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees, past and present, seeking billions of dollars in a suit accusing the retailer of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions at the company
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Woman are different than men. They aren’t as strong, have less endurance, aren’t as tall, and have different dispositions as well. They should be paid accordingly.
Guess we have a provocatuer poster on board.
The uglist women in the world - lose :-))
Yes, but we women are so much smarter than you men. ;)
...and all obummer needs is one more on the SCOTUS.
I think their 'rate of pay' should be based solely on their 'looks'.
obummer is not very good legally. He has help with the Liberal Justices, but often times he still fails.
[ Woman are different than men. They aren’t as strong, have less endurance, aren’t as tall, and have different dispositions as well. They should be paid accordingly. ]
AND they sue their employers for trumped nonsense.. and until now mostly get away with it..
Hiring women, unless you are forced to, can be almost suicidal... for an employer..
If the truth “provokes,” so be it.
"...handing a victory to Wal-Mart in a case that pitted the massive retailer against millions of its female employees."
That makes it sound like Mal-Mart and its female employes are in a true adversarial position, when actually it was Wal-Mart vs a clutch of jacobin lawyers, using 6 female shills as their instrument of class warfare.
Then explain to me why women will stand in line at the checkout register for 5 minutes with a cart of items to purchase, then watch as it is all rang up, and THEN when the clerk looks at them as says, "THAT WILL BE .....", they get this deer in the headlight look, and start fumbling through their purse searching for cash or credit cards, as if they had no idea they would be asked to pay at this point in their shopping outing.
Huh. What are the chances. < |:/~
bingo!
In this March 29, 2011 file photo, the five plaintiffs in a case of women employees against Wal-Mart, from left, Stephanie Odle, of Norman, Okla., Betty Dukes, of Pittsburg, Calif., Deborah Gunter, of Palm Springs, Calif., Christine Kwapnoski, of Bay Point, Calif., and Edith Arena, of Duarte, Calif. pose for a photograph outside the Supreme Court in Washington.
How 'bout we look at this from --- I know it's a novel approach --- a free market perspective? And determine pay by the supply/demands conditions the labor market and the employees' profitability to the company?
Hmm, big boy?
Thank God for small favors.
You noticed that too?
Plaintiffs never make money in a class action lawsuit - only the plaintiffs lawyers make money. Let’s say they had won a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit. Each of the 1.5 million plaintiffs would get $1,000 (less the legal fees of $333) or $667 per plaintiff. However, the law firm representing the plaintiff gets $500,000,000.
Or we could just leave it the way it is now, where pay is based on LOOKS and who you will have sex with.
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.