DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Wal-Mart Supreme Court discrimination case

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/20/scotus.wal.mart.discrimination/index.html?iref=allsearch

Surprised I didn't see a post about this. Thought it would make for some interesting discussion.

I sort of understand the Court's ruling, only on the grounds that each case should be looked at individually rather than a massive, one-time class action. What isn't clear to me is if these women have any recourse at this point. I hope they do, especially the one who was told she was passed over for promotion b/c the guy who got it "had a family to support," even though she was a single mother. Or the one who was told to "doll up and put on some make up." There is no place for that kind of sexist crap in any country.

On the other hand, what really bothers me is a quote from Scalia, who ruled in favor of Wal-Mart; "In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction." To me, he is basically saying that what the lawsuit alleges is almost certainly true, but oh well.

Another aspect of this that is troubling is that Scalia says: "On the facts of the case," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority, the plaintiffs had to show "significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. That is entirely absent here." So as long as Wal-Mart's policy isn't discrimination, its ok to discriminate at a manager's individual discretion? Not a very good argument to me.

This is an interesting topic to me b/c even in my field, biomedical research, which is supposed to be very forward thinking and liberal, there is recognition that women do not get paid as much and have a harder time advancing for doing work equal to men. The statistics are quite appalling, with more women graduating with a PhD, yet making up a very small percentage of tenured professors. By my own experiences, the women grad students/post-docs are no more or less talented than the men, so it's hard to reconcile the numbers.

That is clearly Scalia scolding Wal-Mart, letting them know that simply because this case shouldn't move forward as a class action(the 4 liberal justices also agreed this case didn't meet the criteria for a class suit), Wal_Mart needs to take a serious look at their policy and may very well be open to other actions with remedy that won't be in their favor.

I do find it troubling the other justices who agreed it didn't hold class status were willing to vote to bend the law and allow it to move forward.

That's kind of how I took it as well.

Personally I find class action suits to be quite worthless as a remedy anyway. I get letters in the mail all the time ..... OK, maybe 3-4 per year ...... about class action suits that I might be a party to. Oh yea ..... I might be entitled to somewhere around $10 ....... or a free pay per view movie ..... or other similar "impressive" award.

I always exclude myself from the class. It's not a worthwhile endevour to pursue a class action suit ...... except for the lawyers involved. They usually manage to negotiate themselves a heafty $1 million+ salary into the award. If I find the offense to be particularly egregious, then I can always sue them myself.

Thus far I havan't sued anyone.

I was part of a class once. I ordered some car part online, and just checked the "I agree" box. My next credit card bill had some "loyalty" program charge for $12. I called and asked, and they said I agreed when I ordered the car part. I said take me off, and they said OK, but I was already in my second month at that point.

I few months later I get the class action letter, and a few months after that I get a check for the full $24. Don't know how the lawyers made a buck, though.

Quote:

---

I didn't take that quote like you did. I took it as it's not the Corporate policy, so you can't make it a class action suit against that corporate entity. The plaintiff's still have individual store's and the managers themselves they can take to court. Individual merits for each.

At least that's how I took that.

---

That's how I took it as well. I guess I was making a jump and assuming that now these individual women have no recourse after a Supreme Court decision. I'm no lawyer, so I could be completely wrong. I always thought the Supreme Court was the last course of action.

The supreme court was the last stop in whether the matter could attain class-action status. Which has much greater penalties. It's not saying that they were or were not discriminated against. It was only ruling on the "class" as a whole, which it denied. The individuals can still file suit and have their day in court if they choose. But it's not going to be as a group.

That actually makes sense. My mistake.