Another stab at women.

Another stab at women. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> Another stab at women. (6/20/2011 7:45:10 PM)
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the nation's biggest companies. The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages. In a statement, Wal-Mart said, "The court today unanimously rejected class certification and, as the majority made clear, the plaintiffs' claims were worlds away from showing a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy." Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, said "the court has told employers that they can rest easy, knowing that the bigger and more powerful they are, the less likely their employees will be able to join together to secure their rights." The high court's majority agreed with Wal-Mart's argument that being forced to defend the treatment of female employees regardless of the jobs they hold or where they work is unfair. Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for the court's conservative majority said there need to be common elements tying together "literally millions of employment decisions at once." But Scalia said that in the lawsuit against the nation's largest private employer, "That is entirely absent here." Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said. The business community has said that a ruling for the women would lead to a flood of class-action lawsuits based on vague evidence. Supporters of the women feared that a decision in favor of Wal-Mart could remove a valuable weapon for fighting all sorts of discrimination. Said Greenberger: "The women of Wal-Mart, together with women everywhere, will now face a far steeper road to challenge and correct pay and other forms of discrimination in the workplace." The lawsuit, citing what are now dated figures from 2001, said that women are grossly underrepresented among managers, holding just 14 percent of store manager positions compared with more than 80 percent of lower-ranking supervisory jobs that are paid by the hour. Wal-Mart responded that women in its retail stores made up two-thirds of all employees and two-thirds of all managers in 2001. The company also has said its policies prohibit discrimination and that it has taken steps since the suit was filed to address problems, including posting job openings electronically. http://www.kare11.com/rss/article/927486/18/Walmart-sex-discrimination-lawsuit-blocked-by-Supreme-Court Leaves no doubt as to who is running the Supreme Court.... big business.

juliaoceania -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/20/2011 7:59:27 PM)
Maybe the key is for women to quit working there as much as possible... If you have no court which will give you justice, seek it elsewhere Maybe we could also link women's rights groups to a boycott of the retailer too?

PilotPTK -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/20/2011 8:06:11 PM)
Personally, I'm all for equality, but on this one - I'm going to have to side with the Supreme Court. To qualify for Class-Action status, a group of plaintiffs must have very distinguishing characteristics in that they have all been harmed in the same manor. To even suggest that all 1.3 million of these women were 'harmed' in the same manor is pure crazy. This is a situation where each person really should bring their own suit. Additionally, I'm sure there are a fair number of men who have been just as discriminated against for one reason or another. They too can participate in a law-suit against walmart - on their own standing. The Supreme Court didn't rule against this group of women, they simply said that they were going about the suit in the incorrect way. I agree.

tazzygirl -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/20/2011 8:09:13 PM)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the court's four liberal justices, said there was more than enough uniting the claims. "Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," Ginsburg said. That is what ties them all together, every law suit involving these women and Wal-mart.

Moonhead -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 4:57:25 AM)
Intriguingly, we've just had a Conservative MP receive a good talking to (from both parties as well as the press) for suggesting that the disabled would be more employable if they could be employed for less than minimum wage. (No actual action taken, of course, but everybody acted offended.) Presumably the pay offs to the supreme court will cost walmart less than the class action suit might have, but things could be worse...

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 5:12:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Maybe the key is for women to quit working there as much as possible... If you have no court which will give you justice, seek it elsewhere Maybe we could also link women's rights groups to a boycott of the retailer too? Maybe the key is for women to quit working... For a day, a week, however long it takes for justice.

Aneirin -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 5:14:47 AM)
Typical of tories that, money, money , money, that is all they want, to either conserve it or make more of it, and damn the consequences, people don't matter, least of all those at the bottom of society, which many pensioners are due to their measily pension in a world where costs are rising fast and if you are poor, you notice those rising costs more than the more wealthy as being poor, one has to make their funds last or in this climate, go further just to survive. But, as to the OP, have you finally got it the mechanisms of power exist for business, granted people are also part of that business, but minorities of people don't matter when it is business that is the prime concern. Now if it were a majority of people that were filing against a company, the courts just might sit up and take notice, but when it is a minority, business comes first, can't upset business, or they might go elsewhere. What is the point of an administartion, if it is not to make money, the courts make money on behalf of the administration, the administration makes the conditions favourable for private companies to exist to employ people and reap the taxes thereof.

SternSkipper -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 6:02:18 AM)
quote: Maybe we could also link women's rights groups to a boycott of the retailer too? Now THERE is something I would love to see. A nationwide boycott based on their overall lack of fairness towards women, the elderly and minorities. You would probably need to get all three factions on board to make sure Walmart can't just bolt down the storm shutters and rely on one of more of the other demographics for revenue to keep the doors open. I would LOVE to see this work if it were consumer based, and people got a FEEL for how easily they could manage without one of these big 'single provider' kinds of businesses, this could easily and quickly be replicated elsewhere. I just wanted to add that the other reason I think that groups other than simply the rank and file "women's rights" groups should be targeted as participants is simply this. The consumer to a pretty large extent has lost touch of the boycott concept as a tool to effect change. It would be nice to see a comeback. And economic times like these are perfect for actions such as these since the consumer may very well hold the power of life and death over the corporate bullies, and they should be shown that.

erieangel -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 6:34:03 AM)
I've read that Walmart is looking to replace their CEO because profits have been down. This is due mainly because people don't shop at Walmart unless they have to, that means the poor. What Walmart needs is a new business model, not to build new stores, small stores in very rural areas and larger and larger ones in urban centers. They need to treat their workers fairly, offer a fair wage and benefits and repair their reputation in that respect maybe then, people will go back to the stores.

Moonhead -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 6:42:01 AM)
Treating and paying their staff better would cut into their profit margins, though. That's clearly unconscionable.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:10:30 AM)
The way I read it was actually more chilling....As I understand it the matter in front of the court was simply whether or not this suit could be certified as a class action.What this decision did was set the bar for this type of suit higher....perhaps so high that future plaintiffs will not be able to reach the new bar. Scalia basically states in the majority opinion that not only must there be a common element to tie the claims together but there must be "glue" binding the elements of the suit.So in one fell swoop Scalia and his conservative cohorts have now made certifying an unreasonable hurdle for plaintiffs. Absent the option of class action employees will find that redress is no longer open to them....a single employee against a large Corp...is David vs Goliath ,finding a lawyer to take on such a challenge will be difficult.Finding one to accept the case when the payday is comparitvely minuscule will be next to impossible. If for no other reason than the opportunity to alter the makeup of this disastrous court I will blindly and emphatically cast my vote for Obama again....it is imperative that he get a second term...if only for the chance to appoint one more judge.

Musicmystery -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:13:05 AM)
The justices all agreed by a 5-4 vote? How does that work...

Moonhead -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:17:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The way I read it was actually more chilling....As I understand it the matter in front of the court was simply whether or not this suit could be certified as a class action.What this decision did was set the bar for this type of suit higher....perhaps so high that future plaintiffs will not be able to reach the new bar. Scalia basically states in the majority opinion that not only must there be a common element to tie the claims together but there must be "glue" binding the elements of the suit.So in one fell swoop Scalia and his conservative cohorts have now made certifying an unreasonable hurdle for plaintiffs. Yep. I don't think you're wrong there at all. It's curious how we haven't seen any of the P&R Libertarian massive comment on this. Do they feel that big government is more acceptable if it has corporate interests hands stuck up its arse, and is this going to help money trickle down from the elite to the untermensch?

angelikaJ -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:19:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u The way I read it was actually more chilling....As I understand it the matter in front of the court was simply whether or not this suit could be certified as a class action.What this decision did was set the bar for this type of suit higher....perhaps so high that future plaintiffs will not be able to reach the new bar. Scalia basically states in the majority opinion that not only must there be a common element to tie the claims together but there must be "glue" binding the elements of the suit.So in one fell swoop Scalia and his conservative cohorts have now made certifying an unreasonable hurdle for plaintiffs. Absent the option of class action employees will find that redress is no longer open to them....a single employee against a large Corp...is David vs Goliath ,finding a lawyer to take on such a challenge will be difficult.Finding one to accept the case when the payday is comparitvely minuscule will be next to impossible. If for no other reason than the opportunity to alter the makeup of this disastrous court I will blindly and emphatically cast my vote for Obama again....it is imperative that he get a second term...if only for the chance to appoint one more judge. This ruling may change how class actions are classifiable period. Not just with employees vs employers but in many other instances as well. A suit can't go through because there are too many plaintiffs... ? I can see a lot of future nit-picking going on to see if there will be uncommonalities that will be able to be used to de-classify a possible class action.

slvemike4u -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:24:31 AM)
This court is a complete and utter disaster for the rights of individuals...and a boon for anything to do with corporate matters.It's consistency is the greatest argument for a second term.I would need a college level court history lesson to recall when any court was so polarized along ideological lines....5 to 4 seems to be the only number being played on this courts hit list.

DomKen -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:35:08 AM)
Two things, first this ruling shows why we have to re-elect Obama and support increasing the number of justices to 11. Otherwise we could be looking at a far right court for the rest of our lifetimes. Second this ruling could actually be a disaster for Wal-Mart. They fought certification of the class under the theory that the plaintiffs would not pursue the cases individually. Every plaintiff in a state that allows for attorney's fees as part of employment discrimination judgements should pursue their cases. Wal-Mart would then be faced with defending hundreds of thousands of cases at the same time. They could not send their top trial lawyers and expensive experts to every one.

Lucylastic -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:36:22 AM)
FR> God love em, isnt the supreme court supposed to be for the people? ooohh bugger of course, since corporations are now ///persons/// its a level playing ground huh We must save the innocent corporations who didnt see this coming? If women did boycott, or stop working, there are enough men out of work to take up their jobs at lesser wages... women and children starving?? who cares, right???the poor business is so put upon WHhat a goddamn clusterfuck Maybe walmart can get on -line salespeople and outsource the "live" help in india too? save even more money. With cameras and ast link, you could even have remote greeters

Musicmystery -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:36:59 AM)
quote: support increasing the number of justices Didn't FDR already trying that? Court packing has no prayer.

DomKen -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:38:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: support increasing the number of justices Didn't FDR already trying that? Court packing has no prayer. Well then Thomas needs to be impeached. Which do you think more likely to pass the Senate in 2013?

Musicmystery -> RE: Another stab at women. (6/21/2011 7:41:04 AM)
DOA, both.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875