Walmart wins

[ElNono]

I'm fairly sure most here heard about the SCOTUS ruling. If not: link (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21class.html?hp)

Thoughts?

[DMX7]

Predictable.

[Trainwreck2100]

lol dumb bitches, way to fuck it up for all of us

[boutons_deux]

Walmart: To Big To Sue

"Justice Scalia ... would have been hugely unfair to Wal-Mart " :lol :lol :lol

But discriminating against women is not unfair.

Once again, the Repug/VRWC-packed SCOTUS protects and enriches UCA to the detriment of Human-Americans. "l'etat, c'est Walmart"

Trainwreck, rapist apologist, blames the victims. "the sluts asked for it"

[TheProfessor]

Predictable.
Unfortunately, yes. I don't understand the reasoning - just because you have a nationwide practice means you can preclude a class action suit? Just seems like an additional barrier to class action lawsuits on an issue that trial courts could already handle, making it much more difficult to hold companies responsible for their actions.

[ChuckD]

Ridiculous. The class was too wide? WTF? If they're discriminating against women, all you should need to join the suit is a vagina.

[ElNono]

I didn't follow the reasoning either. You have to show proof that there's an actual stated policy to discriminate in order to class action for discrimination? That part made no sense to me. I did expect this verdict though, seeing how it would set a major precedent for all Corps in general. I can only imagine the political pressure that was applied for this case.

[Wild Cobra]

Predictable.
This alone in the article makes a clear reason:

In the Wal-Mart case, the court wrote that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that Wal-Mart had any nationwide policies or practices that discriminated against women.

[Wild Cobra]

I didn't follow the reasoning either. You have to show proof that there's an actual stated policy to discriminate in order to class action for discrimination? That part made no sense to me. I did expect this verdict though, seeing how it would set a major precedent for all Corps in general. I can only imagine the political pressure that was applied for this case.
I didn't read the whole thing, but the line I quoted alone makes perfect sense to me. Lets assume that only a regional manager sets policies that would affect women. I could see class action suit for that region. Women being a part of it from that region. However, if the policies of that region didn't have any effect of women in another region, how can they sue also?

The prosecution didn't make it's case for a nationwide suit.

[ElNono]

I didn't read the whole thing, but the line I quoted alone makes perfect sense to me. Lets assume that only a regional manager sets policies that would affect women. I could see class action suit for that region. Women being a part of it from that region. However, if the policies of that region didn't have any effect of women in another region, how can they sue also?

The prosecution didn't make it's case for a nationwide suit.

I don't like to ASSume in this case. I appreciate hearing from people like TheProfessor (and I wish FWD would weigh in too) that seem to be more familiar with the legalese.

The statistics used to build the discrimination case were nationwide, AFAIK. I also don't understand why there has to be a stated policy. Discrimination can be subtle, but noticeable over time. It can also be non-intentional. It's up to the prosecutors to prove their case. Notice that the SCOTUS didn't rule on the discrimination argument per se, but on whether class action applied.

[CuckingFunt]

I didn't read the whole thing, but the line I quoted alone makes perfect sense to me. Lets assume that only a regional manager sets policies that would affect women. I could see class action suit for that region. Women being a part of it from that region. However, if the policies of that region didn't have any effect of women in another region, how can they sue also?

The prosecution didn't make it's case for a nationwide suit.

I think the part ElNono is questioning is tying the viability of such cases to a corporation's stated policies. The likelihood of Wal-Mart, or any other major corporation, having a specifically discriminatory policy on the books is pretty slim, but that alone does not rule out the possibility of discriminatory practices taking place on a national level.

[ElNono]

I think the part ElNono is questioning is tying the viability of such cases to a corporation's stated policies. The likelihood of Wal-Mart, or any other major corporation, having a specifically discriminatory policy on the books is pretty slim, but that alone does not rule out the possibility of discriminatory practices taking place on a national level.

Exactly. It's quite possible that Walmart might not have intentionally discriminated, but that's for the prosecutors to prove. There's obviously less incentive now to go after those cases if you have to separate each individual case.

[boutons_deux]

"practices that discriminated against women"

the lack of women in upper ranks and the difference in pay for same job is "practices".

But wal-mart is no different from all companies. Wimmen get paid 25-30% less than men for the same job. There is huge economic reason why ERA amendment failed. UCA killed it.

[CuckingFunt]

Exactly. It's quite possible that Walmart might not have intentionally discriminated, but that's for the prosecutors to prove. There's obviously less incentive now to go after those cases if you have to separate each individual case.

I think it creates a problem that goes beyond even incentive, really, which is the part I find most troubling.

The aspect not taken into consideration by the ruling is that even if individuals or small groups go after a corporation at the regional level, that corporation is almost certainly going to stick with its big scale corporate lawyers. The benefit of class action suits is the fact they provide a sense of solidarity/strength in matters that would otherwise seem insurmountable.

In keeping with the Wal-Mart case as an example, women raising charges of sexual discrimination historically fight an uphill battle not only legally, but also in terms of being labeled a difficult and/or hysterical employee and inviting further discrimination. The likely result of all of this, then, is that women who may otherwise come together through a class action will now be forced to take on a corporation on their own and will in many cases opt to just live with the discrimination.

[boutons_deux]

"just live with the discrimination"

yep, keep your head down, STFU, and try make it to next paycheck. 20M+ out there w/o jobs.

[boutons_deux]

good article on the general trend since the VRWC got organized/focused relentlessly post-Nixon, post-VN

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-executive-pay-rich-pull-away-from-rest-of-america/2011/06/13/AGKG9jaH_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't see the opinion as a death knell for discrimination claims, even where the discriminatory practices are subtle and not part of a coherent corporate policy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia basically admits that the various members of the class may well have viable claims under Title VII. As others have said, his opinion boils down to the fact that there hasn't been a single, identified basis for the discrimination -- the claimants themselves have alleged that the discriminatory practices are the work of managers at the store or regional level; I see their complaint as an effort to bootstrap themselves into a class posture by claiming that Wal-Mart's allowance of that sort of idiosyncratic discretion is basically an indifference to the discriminatory practices and a tacit approval of them.

According to Justice Scalia, this doesn't mean that there hasn't been discrimination, it just means that the mechanism for remedying the consequences of that discrimination must be smaller actions. He reaches that conclusion, as I read it, by basically observing that the proof of discrimination as to one claimant will be different from the proof of discrimination as to another -- the berating of female employees by Bob, the manager of a store in southern Indiana is not the same as the refusal by George, the manager of a store in eastern Washington, to promote women into management positions. In order to support class certification, Justice Scalia says, the conduct of Bob and George must be the same so that a jury would need to hear only testimony that all Wal-Mart managers do (or don't do) some particular thing. There would likely be a basis for a mass action by all females who worked for Bob or by all females who worked for George, but since the jury would have to make two different determinations in an action naming Bob and George together, it would be inappropriate to allow a single action against them.

The statistics, it seems to me, go largely to the effect of the practices, but they don't define the practices themselves or show that each practice is, itself, discriminatory. In almost any civil proceeding, the claimant is required to prove (in some form or fashion) that the defendant did something in particular to cause harm; the claimant must also prove that it suffered harm. Here, I think Justice Scalia is focused on the former and the statistical proof tends to go more to the latter. As I read the opinion, Justice Scalia concludes that even if the injuries are all the same, the conduct that caused them is not -- and the inquiry into whether the particular conduct was discriminatory or not requires consideration of the conduct of each decision-maker whose conduct is alleged to have harmed the claimants.

In the small context -- described above -- of two managers who are both discriminators (but in different ways) the problem may seem insignificant; cast against several thousand managers who all may have discriminated but in different ways, the feasibility of a single action becomes untenable, at least according to Justice Scalia (and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito).

This is largely a procedural disposition, at least in that sense. From a substantive standpoint, I suppose that it imposes an even greater burden of proof upon those who seek class certification, but I'm not sure that there's much that's novel about that. The more that litigants seek to avail themselves of class actions, the more the courts and legislatures seem to retrench in analyzing the propriety of the class action mechanism. I'm frankly cool with that, mostly because the class action mechanism tends to be a grossly misused procedure in most of its applications, at least insofar as it tends to afford claimants with nominal relief (coupons with negligible value or de minimis monetary recoveries) while creating windfalls for the lawyers who prosecute them.

I do think that the dissent's argument that the majority has gerrymandered its conclusion by conflating the commonality requirement and the predominance requirement is a solid point and, frankly, in terms of the future of the class action as a general concept, that analytical choice may prove to be the most lasting consequence of this decision.

[MannyIsGod]

The reasoning is so bizarre to me. Its almost an application of TBTF policy to the judicial system. Want an advantage? Make the practice nation wide and systematic.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't see the opinion as a death knell for discrimination claims, even where the discriminatory practices are subtle and not part of a coherent corporate policy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia basically admits that the various members of the class may well have viable claims under Title VII. As others have said, his opinion boils down to the fact that there hasn't been a single, identified basis for the discrimination -- the claimants themselves have alleged that the discriminatory practices are the work of managers at the store or regional level; I see their complaint as an effort to bootstrap themselves into a class posture by claiming that Wal-Mart's allowance of that sort of idiosyncratic discretion is basically an indifference to the discriminatory practices and a tacit approval of them.

According to Justice Scalia, this doesn't mean that there hasn't been discrimination, it just means that the mechanism for remedying the consequences of that discrimination must be smaller actions. He reaches that conclusion, as I read it, by basically observing that the proof of discrimination as to one claimant will be different from the proof of discrimination as to another -- the berating of female employees by Bob, the manager of a store in southern Indiana is not the same as the refusal by George, the manager of a store in eastern Washington, to promote women into management positions. In order to support class certification, Justice Scalia says, the conduct of Bob and George must be the same so that a jury would need to hear only testimony that all Wal-Mart managers do (or don't do) some particular thing. There would likely be a basis for a mass action by all females who worked for Bob or by all females who worked for George, but since the jury would have to make two different determinations in an action naming Bob and George together, it would be inappropriate to allow a single action against them. In the small context of two managers who are both discriminators (but in different ways) the problem may seem insignificant; cast against several thousand managers who all may have discriminated but in different ways, the feasibility of a single action becomes untenable, at least according to Justice Scalia (and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito).

This is largely a procedural disposition, at least in that sense. From a substantive standpoint, I suppose that it imposes an even greater burden of proof upon those who seek class certification, but I'm not sure that there's much that's novel about that. The more that litigants seek to avail themselves of class actions, the more the courts and legislatures seem to retrench in analyzing the propriety of the class action mechanism. I'm frankly cool with that, mostly because the class action mechanism tends to be a grossly misused procedure in most of its applications, at least insofar as it tends to afford claimants with nominal relief (coupons with negligible value or de minimis monetary recoveries) while creating windfalls for the lawyers who prosecute them.

I do think that the dissent's argument that the majority has gerrymandered its conclusion by conflating the commonality requirement and the predominance requirement is a solid point and, frankly, in terms of the future of the class action as a general concept, that analytical choice may prove to be the most lasting consequence of this decision.


Do you think there is an effect on judicial/legal resources with this decision? I guess my question is that if each defendant now has to go it alone what does it do to the availability of courts and quality representation?

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you think there is an effect on judicial/legal resources with this decision? I guess my question is that if each defendant now has to go it alone what does it do to the availability of courts and quality representation?

As I see it, even high priced corporate attorneys can't change the facts of a case if discrimination actually exists at a localized level. Using FWD's example if Bob in Indiana is systematically berating female employees then the females in Bobs store can sue as a class for Bobs actions and would still be able to get competent representation.

If Bob is not berating all female employees but just one or a few then it shouldn't qualify as a class action to start with.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do you think there is an effect on judicial/legal resources with this decision? I guess my question is that if each defendant now has to go it alone what does it do to the availability of courts and quality representation?

Absolutely, this threatens a strain on judicial resources -- assuming that each of the more than 1,000,000 claimants decides to pursue an individual action. That strain is mitigated, to some extent at least, by the dispersal of those claims across the country; and in smaller contexts, the claims of those affected by particular managers can be aggregated into single causes that might streamline the process to an extent. But I also don't think that the threat of consumed judicial resources should support abuse of the class action mechanism. I think there's certainly virtue in defending the need to ensure judicial economy, but I would dispute that it should ever become the overriding basis for determining the propriety of a class action.

And, frankly, if that comes to pass, I think it will place a dramatic strain on Wal-Mart, ironically. It will, after all, have to retain counsel in a wide array of jurisdictions to defend these sorts of actions and will incur the costs of the defense in those lawsuits (along with the potential judgments the claimants might be able to obtain). I suppose there's a cost-benefit analysis for Wal-Mart -- it is undoubtedly betting that by dispersing the class, many of the claimants will drop their allegations, that others will be unable to prove discrimination, and that it can settle for a reasonable amount iwth those who might be able to make that showing. But it also runs the risk of being hit hard in a particularly disfavorable jurisdiction.

This isn't a criminal proceeding in any sense, so the concern for the quality of representation is -- to me -- relatively insignificant.

[CuckingFunt]

I don't see the opinion as a death knell for discrimination claims, even where the discriminatory practices are subtle and not part of a coherent corporate policy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia basically admits that the various members of the class may well have viable claims under Title VII. As others have said, his opinion boils down to the fact that there hasn't been a single, identified basis for the discrimination -- the claimants themselves have alleged that the discriminatory practices are the work of managers at the store or regional level; I see their complaint as an effort to bootstrap themselves into a class posture by claiming that Wal-Mart's allowance of that sort of idiosyncratic discretion is basically an indifference to the discriminatory practices and a tacit approval of them.

According to Justice Scalia, this doesn't mean that there hasn't been discrimination, it just means that the mechanism for remedying the consequences of that discrimination must be smaller actions. He reaches that conclusion, as I read it, by basically observing that the proof of discrimination as to one claimant will be different from the proof of discrimination as to another -- the berating of female employees by Bob, the manager of a store in southern Indiana is not the same as the refusal by George, the manager of a store in eastern Washington, to promote women into management positions. In order to support class certification, Justice Scalia says, the conduct of Bob and George must be the same so that a jury would need to hear only testimony that all Wal-Mart managers do (or don't do) some particular thing. There would likely be a basis for a mass action by all females who worked for Bob or by all females who worked for George, but since the jury would have to make two different determinations in an action naming Bob and George together, it would be inappropriate to allow a single action against them.

The statistics, it seems to me, go largely to the effect of the practices, but they don't define the practices themselves or show that each practice is, itself, discriminatory. In almost any civil proceeding, the claimant is required to prove (in some form or fashion) that the defendant did something in particular to cause harm; the claimant must also prove that it suffered harm. Here, I think Justice Scalia is focused on the former and the statistical proof tends to go more to the latter. As I read the opinion, Justice Scalia concludes that even if the injuries are all the same, the conduct that caused them is not -- and the inquiry into whether the particular conduct was discriminatory or not requires consideration of the conduct of each decision-maker whose conduct is alleged to have harmed the claimants.

In the small context -- described above -- of two managers who are both discriminators (but in different ways) the problem may seem insignificant; cast against several thousand managers who all may have discriminated but in different ways, the feasibility of a single action becomes untenable, at least according to Justice Scalia (and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito).

This is largely a procedural disposition, at least in that sense. From a substantive standpoint, I suppose that it imposes an even greater burden of proof upon those who seek class certification, but I'm not sure that there's much that's novel about that. The more that litigants seek to avail themselves of class actions, the more the courts and legislatures seem to retrench in analyzing the propriety of the class action mechanism. I'm frankly cool with that, mostly because the class action mechanism tends to be a grossly misused procedure in most of its applications, at least insofar as it tends to afford claimants with nominal relief (coupons with negligible value or de minimis monetary recoveries) while creating windfalls for the lawyers who prosecute them.

I do think that the dissent's argument that the majority has gerrymandered its conclusion by conflating the commonality requirement and the predominance requirement is a solid point and, frankly, in terms of the future of the class action as a general concept, that analytical choice may prove to be the most lasting consequence of this decision.

And, frankly, I get that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can at least follow the logic there.

My tripping point remains the verbiage that specifically ties the class action mechanism to issues of stated policy. In 2011, one would assume that all instances of discrimination, especially within a corporation of Wal-Mart's size, would be the result of someone(s) acting outside of company policy. Using policy to determine the viability of a class action, then, strikes me as both arbitrary and ineffectual.

[boutons_deux]

Wal-Mart Decision a Victory for Women

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270126/wal-mart-decision-victory-women-kellyanne-conway

[CuckingFunt]

The decision is also important to the economy and the 2.1 million men and women who currently work for Wal-Mart (http://www.walmartstores.com/download/2230.pdf). Wal-Mart is the largest overall employer in the U.S., and the biggest employer in 25 states. Wal-Mart employment represents a “good deal” for employees, especially those with lower levels of formal education and statistically-lower earning capacities over time. The average wage for hourly employees is $11.75, $4.50 over the current federal minimum wage. Employees are eligible for a variety of extra benefits including bonuses, health-care insurance for both full-time and part-time employees, 401(k) fund contributions, associate stock-purchase programs, profit-sharing plans, and a 10 percent discount on merchandise. Wal-Mart has received national diversity awards.

Hopeful workers, male and female alike, flock to new Wal-Mart stores in search of employment. In 2007, a new Cleveland store received 6,000 applications for 300 openings. In Chicago in 2006 one store received 25,000 applications for just 325 positions. Wal-Mart managers say the typical response to a new store involves collecting between 3,000 and 4,000 applications for somewhere between 300 and 450 jobs, or roughly ten applicants for everyone one available position.
What a mind fuck of revisionism that is.

[ElNono]

I don't see the opinion as a death knell for discrimination claims, even where the discriminatory practices are subtle and not part of a coherent corporate policy.

Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia basically admits that the various members of the class may well have viable claims under Title VII. As others have said, his opinion boils down to the fact that there hasn't been a single, identified basis for the discrimination -- the claimants themselves have alleged that the discriminatory practices are the work of managers at the store or regional level; I see their complaint as an effort to bootstrap themselves into a class posture by claiming that Wal-Mart's allowance of that sort of idiosyncratic discretion is basically an indifference to the discriminatory practices and a tacit approval of them.

According to Justice Scalia, this doesn't mean that there hasn't been discrimination, it just means that the mechanism for remedying the consequences of that discrimination must be smaller actions. He reaches that conclusion, as I read it, by basically observing that the proof of discrimination as to one claimant will be different from the proof of discrimination as to another -- the berating of female employees by Bob, the manager of a store in southern Indiana is not the same as the refusal by George, the manager of a store in eastern Washington, to promote women into management positions. In order to support class certification, Justice Scalia says, the conduct of Bob and George must be the same so that a jury would need to hear only testimony that all Wal-Mart managers do (or don't do) some particular thing. There would likely be a basis for a mass action by all females who worked for Bob or by all females who worked for George, but since the jury would have to make two different determinations in an action naming Bob and George together, it would be inappropriate to allow a single action against them.

The statistics, it seems to me, go largely to the effect of the practices, but they don't define the practices themselves or show that each practice is, itself, discriminatory. In almost any civil proceeding, the claimant is required to prove (in some form or fashion) that the defendant did something in particular to cause harm; the claimant must also prove that it suffered harm. Here, I think Justice Scalia is focused on the former and the statistical proof tends to go more to the latter. As I read the opinion, Justice Scalia concludes that even if the injuries are all the same, the conduct that caused them is not -- and the inquiry into whether the particular conduct was discriminatory or not requires consideration of the conduct of each decision-maker whose conduct is alleged to have harmed the claimants.

In the small context -- described above -- of two managers who are both discriminators (but in different ways) the problem may seem insignificant; cast against several thousand managers who all may have discriminated but in different ways, the feasibility of a single action becomes untenable, at least according to Justice Scalia (and Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito).

This is largely a procedural disposition, at least in that sense. From a substantive standpoint, I suppose that it imposes an even greater burden of proof upon those who seek class certification, but I'm not sure that there's much that's novel about that. The more that litigants seek to avail themselves of class actions, the more the courts and legislatures seem to retrench in analyzing the propriety of the class action mechanism. I'm frankly cool with that, mostly because the class action mechanism tends to be a grossly misused procedure in most of its applications, at least insofar as it tends to afford claimants with nominal relief (coupons with negligible value or de minimis monetary recoveries) while creating windfalls for the lawyers who prosecute them.

I do think that the dissent's argument that the majority has gerrymandered its conclusion by conflating the commonality requirement and the predominance requirement is a solid point and, frankly, in terms of the future of the class action as a general concept, that analytical choice may prove to be the most lasting consequence of this decision.

Thanks for weighing in. My concern is that by not specifying where the line is drawn for acceptance of class action status, this makes the waters more muddy. Taking from your example, Bob and George undeniably are representing the company in their capacity as managers. I understand the contention that since Bob and George might make up 0.1% of all Walmart managers, then attempting to pile up all Walmart women would seem unfair, or flat out wrong. The problem I see however is that there was no specification as to where the tipping point is. If 99% of managers discriminate (in the case where there's no stated corporate policy), does that mean that class action would not apply because there's a 1% that doesn't fit in the class? Would defense strategy against class action now shift into looking for that one off case that might not apply to shut down the entire class action status? I suspect that might be the case.

I do agree that class action is abused and that the returns are generally meager for the actual victims. That said, I do think they still effectively can serve as a deterrent (I'm fairly confident that if Walmart would have lost this case, their internal policies would have been adjusted to screen potential problem managers better), and to provide a sense of justice for the collective.

[FromWayDowntown]

And, frankly, I get that. I don't necessarily agree with it, but I can at least follow the logic there.

My tripping point remains the verbiage that specifically ties the class action mechanism to issues of stated policy. In 2011, one would assume that all instances of discrimination, especially within a corporation of Wal-Mart's size, would be the result of someone(s) acting outside of company policy. Using policy to determine the viability of a class action, then, strikes me as both arbitrary and ineffectual.

I'm not sure that any reference to stated policy as the basis for a Title VII action is intended to be exhaustive of the sorts of discrimination claims that could be subject to class certification. For instance, if the claimants all alleged (and could prove) that every decision-maker for Wal-Mart acted in precisely the same way, there would be a clear commonality among the claims even if those actions weren't directed by some stated policy. While that scenario might be far-fetched, I think it would still be amenable to proceeding as a class if it could be established.

[CuckingFunt]

If 99% of managers discriminate (in the case where there's no stated corporate policy), does that mean that class action would not apply because there's a 1% that doesn't fit in the class? Would defense strategy against class action now shift into looking for that one off case that might not apply to shut down the entire class action status? I suspect that might be the case.

The way I'm understanding it, the class action may be shut down because the 99% of managers who discriminate may not all discriminate in the same way.

[ElNono]

My tripping point remains the verbiage that specifically ties the class action mechanism to issues of stated policy. In 2011, one would assume that all instances of discrimination, especially within a corporation of Wal-Mart's size, would be the result of someone(s) acting outside of company policy. Using policy to determine the viability of a class action, then, strikes me as both arbitrary and ineffectual.

This is exactly another concern too. Would 'no stated company policy' become a defense to invalidate class action status?

[FromWayDowntown]

Thanks for weighing in. My concern is that by not specifying where the line is drawn for acceptance of class action status, this makes the waters more muddy. Taking from your example, Bob and George undeniably are representing the company in their capacity as managers. I understand the contention that since Bob and George might make up 0.1% of all Walmart managers, then attempting to pile up all Walmart women would seem unfair, or flat out wrong. The problem I see however is that there was no specification as to where the tipping point is. If 99% of managers discriminate (in the case where there's no stated corporate policy), does that mean that class action would not apply because there's a 1% that doesn't fit in the class? Would defense strategy against class action now shift into looking for that one off case that might not apply to shut down the entire class action status? I suspect that might be the case.

My point isn't that there may be some Wal-Mart managers who don't discriminate; my point is that it appears that those Wal-Mart managers who discriminate do so in different ways.

The intrinsic virtue of the class action mechanism is the ability to efficiently dispose of all claims of all class members in a single proceeding that can be resolved by posing just a handful of questions to the finder of fact (be it the judge or a jury). Where, for instance, every act of discrimination is the same -- say, a provable method of keeping the wages of female workers at a level that is 10% lower than every similar male worker -- the class action is a great method for resolving those claims. There will be one expert witness who will testify to a statistical analysis in which he or she proves that 10% disparity and its universality. The fact finder is then asked, "Do you find that Wal-Mart discriminated against the class members?" and answers that question based on the singular manifestation of discrimination.

In the current example, by contrast, you've got women saying a variety of things about the way in which they endured discrimination. Of the class representatives, one says she was denied promotions, one says that she was punished more harshly than men for similar violations, and one says that she was berated by her manager and told to "doll herself up" and other such offensive things. If you try those claims together, you have to have testimony concerning the denial of promotions as to the first claimant, testimony concerning the relative punishment of the second claimant and her male colleagues, and testimony concerning the sorts of things the manager said to the third claimant. Then the jury has to decide whether, in each instance, the conduct proven by the testimony is discriminatory; and it has to decide how to remedy that (in this case, the women sought some pervasive injunctive relief, but also sought remedies like backpay and punitive damages that would have to be awarded idiosyncratically).

Now, again, that might seem a minor problem in the context of three claimants; but where the field of claimants is expanded (and here, it would exceed 1,000,000 women -- all of whom may have different stories) the feasibility of resolving those claims in a single trial becomes manifestly questionable, I think. And that's the concern that the basic requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (the class action rule) try to allay by insisting that class claims meet certain threshold levels of commonality.


I do agree that class action is abused and that the returns are generally meager for the actual victims. That said, I do think they still effectively can serve as a deterrent (I'm fairly confident that if Walmart would have lost this case, their internal policies would have been adjusted to screen potential problem managers better), and to provide a sense of justice for the collective.

Undoubtedly true.

[ElNono]

My point isn't that there may be some Wal-Mart managers who don't discriminate; my point is that it appears that those Wal-Mart managers who discriminate do so in different ways.

The intrinsic virtue of the class action mechanism is the ability to efficiently dispose of all claims of all class members in a single proceeding that can be resolved by posing just a handful of questions to the finder of fact (be it the judge or a jury). Where, for instance, every act of discrimination is the same -- say, a provable method of keeping the wages of female workers at a level that is 10% lower than every similar male worker -- the class action is a great method for resolving those claims. There will be one expert witness who will testify to a statistical analysis in which he or she proves that 10% disparity and its universality. The fact finder is then asked, "Do you find that Wal-Mart discriminated against the class members?" and answers that question based on the singular manifestation of discrimination.

In the current example, by contrast, you've got women saying a variety of things about the way in which they endured discrimination. Of the class representatives, one says she was denied promotions, one says that she was punished more harshly than men for similar violations, and one says that she was berated by her manager and told to "doll herself up" and other such offensive things. If you try those claims together, you have to have testimony concerning the denial of promotions as to the first claimant, testimony concerning the relative punishment of the second claimant and her male colleagues, and testimony concerning the sorts of things the manager said to the third claimant. Then the jury has to decide whether, in each instance, the conduct proven by the testimony is discriminatory; and it has to decide how to remedy that (in this case, the women sought some pervasive injunctive relief, but also sought remedies like backpay and punitive damages that would have to be awarded idiosyncratically).

Now, again, that might seem a minor problem in the context of three claimants; but where the field of claimants is expanded (and here, it would exceed 1,000,000 women -- all of whom may have different stories) the feasibility of resolving those claims in a single trial becomes manifestly questionable, I think. And that's the concern that the basic requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (the class action rule) try to allay by insisting that class claims meet certain threshold levels of commonality.

Thanks. I suspect a lot of this will be tested in lower courts, and potentially reach the SCOTUS again at some point in the future.

[CuckingFunt]

I'm not sure that any reference to stated policy as the basis for a Title VII action is intended to be exhaustive of the sorts of discrimination claims that could be subject to class certification. For instance, if the claimants all alleged (and could prove) that every decision-maker for Wal-Mart acted in precisely the same way, there would be a clear commonality among the claims even if those actions weren't directed by some stated policy. While that scenario might be far-fetched, I think it would still be amenable to proceeding as a class if it could be established.

Well, sure. But I guess the problem I have is that this ruling seems to throw another hurdle at a particular type of legal dispute for which the strength-in-numbers aspect of a class action has typically been beneficial. Realistically, the odds of a corporation as large and as far reaching as Wal-Mart ever being caught practicing identical nationwide discrimination are pretty slim, but have identical claims ever been the point of class action suits? Granted, I've got zero legal background, but it has always seemed to me that class actions focused more on issues of similarity than repetition.

Additionally the ruling absolves the corporation itself of a fair amount of accountability. There is a big difference between suing Bob and George for being shitty bosses and suing Wal-Mart for hiring shitty bosses.

[RandomGuy]

I think the rights of corporate "persons" have gone a bit far.

The evidence in the case was pretty plain to the dissenting judges on the SC that Wal-Mart was, and still is, discriminating in a pretty profound way.

Time to re-write the laws, so that this ruling by the activist judges on the SC can be nullified.

Yeah, I said "activist".

[boutons_deux]

"the rights of corporate "persons" have gone a bit far."

how about:

The Supreme Court held is that, even though employees of Janus Capital Management company actually wrote any misleading statements, even though they managed nearly every substantive aspect of the operation of the fund, they cannot be held responsible because they did not “make” the statements. The “person” under law who made the statements was the entity on whose behalf the offending prospectus was issued, the investment fund, which has no capital other than the money it invests for shareholders. Under Janus, the management company is beyond the reach of aggrieved investors.

the Supreme Court ignored reality, along with decades of history, in favor of a breathtakingly narrow reading of the law. In writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that despite Janus Capital Management’s inarguable role in preparing those prospectuses, the statements therein were “made” by the Janus funds. As such, according to the Court, the funds are responsible for those statements, not Janus Capital Group

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/06/two-supreme-court-rulings-give-big-companies-get-out-of-liability-free-cards.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[FromWayDowntown]

Granted, I've got zero legal background, but it has always seemed to me that class actions focused more on issues of similarity than repetition.

Class actions have everything to do with similarity; if that is coextensive with the conduct being repetitive, that's helpful to their efficient prosecution, but the lack of repetition would not preclude the possibility that the claims would be similar.

My example in my earlier response to you wasn't meant to suggest that repetition would be necessary to sustain a class certification in all instances where there is a lack of corporate policy -- it was meant only to suggest an example of a situation in which a class proceeding could be tenable even if there were no express corporate policy.

At bottom, there are 4 essential factors that must be met to sustain any class, including proof that there are common questions of law and fact among the class members and that the common questions of law and fact predominate over those that are different. Justice Scalia's fundamental conclusion here is that the claims of the class claimants in this instance aren't similar enough because the discrimination visited upon them differs, at least in terms of its type.


Additionally the ruling absolves the corporation itself of a fair amount of accountability. There is a big difference between suing Bob and George for being shitty bosses and suing Wal-Mart for hiring shitty bosses.

I think you misapprehend the scope of those actions. If a claimant is suing for the discriminatory acts of Bob or George, she's not suing Bob or George as individuals. She's suing Wal-Mart for the conduct of its employee (conduct for which Wal-Mart is likely vicariously liable) and potentially for the negligence of Wal-Mart itself in hiring that manager. It's ultimately Wal-Mart that will be liable for the discriminatory conduct.

[CuckingFunt]

I think you misapprehend the scope of those actions. If a claimant is suing for the discriminatory acts of Bob or George, she's not suing Bob or George as individuals. She's suing Wal-Mart for the conduct of its employee (conduct for which Wal-Mart is likely vicariously liable) and potentially for the negligence of Wal-Mart itself in hiring that manager. It's ultimately Wal-Mart that will be liable for the discriminatory conduct.

My example was intentionally oversimplified to make a point. Wal-Mart remains liable regardless the scale, but presumably several small cases are easier to sweep under the rug than one large one. Wal-Mart could still take the hit financially, and perhaps an even bigger one depending on how things play out over time, but in terms of reputation/perception the corporation may remain relatively unscathed. Even this ruling stands out as a victory for the Wal-Mart despite not actually addressing the prevalence of discriminatory practices within the corporation.

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, sure. But I guess the problem I have is that this ruling seems to throw another hurdle at a particular type of legal dispute for which the strength-in-numbers aspect of a class action has typically been beneficial. Realistically, the odds of a corporation as large and as far reaching as Wal-Mart ever being caught practicing identical nationwide discrimination are pretty slim, but have identical claims ever been the point of class action suits? Granted, I've got zero legal background, but it has always seemed to me that class actions focused more on issues of similarity than repetition.

Additionally the ruling absolves the corporation itself of a fair amount of accountability. There is a big difference between suing Bob and George for being shitty bosses and suing Wal-Mart for hiring shitty bosses.

Actually, class action suits with absolutely identical claims are quite common. I just got a notice the other day that said I was eligible for a class action suit against Farmers Insurance ( I used to have my car and house insured with them). Apparently there was a discrepancy in how they figured their management fee (The company is technically owned by the policyholders and pays them a fee to administer it). The lawsuit was for 455 Million + 90 million in attorneys fees. My portion of the 455 million would be $20.95...:lmao

[Blake]

My example was intentionally oversimplified to make a point. Wal-Mart remains liable regardless the scale, but presumably several small cases are easier to sweep under the rug than one large one. Wal-Mart could still take the hit financially, and perhaps an even bigger one depending on how things play out over time, but in terms of reputation/perception the corporation may remain relatively unscathed. Even this ruling stands out as a victory for the Wal-Mart despite not actually addressing the prevalence of discriminatory practices within the corporation.

I would assume WalMart currently has clear written corporate policies laid out regarding discrimination.

If this is the case, what would you suggest that WalMart do to address and to stop possible discrimination practice by local managers in the future?

[DMX7]

This alone in the article makes a clear reason:

No company that discriminates has a nationawide policy telling their managers to openly discriminate against women but it happens anyway. It's Wal-Mart's job to make sure it doesn't happen. The "ignorance" card (i.e., we didn't know it has happenning) doesn't hold up as well as it used to.

[boutons_deux]

WC's advice: "affirmative action and quotas will fix sex discrimination"

[CuckingFunt]

I would assume WalMart currently has clear written corporate policies laid out regarding discrimination.

If this is the case, what would you suggest that WalMart do to address and to stop possible discrimination practice by local managers in the future?

I don't know. Enforce them, maybe?

[baseline bum]

What a mind fuck of revisionism that is.

LOL. It reads like it was written by WC's literate cousin.

[Blake]

I don't know. Enforce them, maybe?

I like this one:


A federal appeals court in Illinois ruled that a worker was not a victim of religious discrimination when she was fired for harassing a gay coworker.
According to court documents, Tanisha Matthews worked as an overnight stocker at a Wal-Mart store in Joliet, Ill. In September 2005 a co-worker identified as Amy filed a complaint with the store alleging that Matthews had harassed her for her sexual orientation during a work break.

In her statement, Amy reported that Matthews was “screaming over her” that God does not accept gays, they should not “be on earth,” and they will “go to hell” because they are not “right in the head.” Five other employees confirmed that Matthews had said that gays are sinners and are going to hell.

Wal-Mart fired Matthews after concluding she’d violated the company’s discrimination and harassment prevention policy. Matthews sued, alleging she was discriminated against for both her race and Apostolic Christian religion, although she later dropped the racial claim.

http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/court-dismisses-religious-discrimination-claim-by-wal-mart-worker.html

She gets fired for violating disrcrimination policies so she tries to sue them for discrimination.

[TheProfessor]

I find it humorous that there are often better legal discussions in here than I ever heard in law school.

[EVAY]

Not being an attorney is manifest in my case, but I thought that the Plessy vs. Ferguson case turned on the argument that unequal results equalled inequality...thus, the overturn and the requirement of massive societal changes in school districting.

Why isn't the result here...manifest inequality in promotions and Board positions proof of inequality in the same way?

Wasn't the above the basis for the successful class action suit against AT&T in 1979 that did more to change bias against women in the workplace than anything else?

[jack sommerset]

This ruling put a big smile on my face. Well done SC, well done indeed.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the part ElNono is questioning is tying the viability of such cases to a corporation's stated policies. The likelihood of Wal-Mart, or any other major corporation, having a specifically discriminatory policy on the books is pretty slim, but that alone does not rule out the possibility of discriminatory practices taking place on a national level.
Yes...

Possibility.

If we start up court cases based on possibilities, what type of a society would we become?

[Wild Cobra]

The lawsuit was for 455 Million + 90 million in attorneys fees. My portion of the 455 million would be $20.95...:lmao
That's the real crime.

[ElNono]

Yes...
Possibility.
If we start up court cases based on possibilities, what type of a society would we become?

Did her/his comment went over your head? :lol

Every court case starts with the possibility of winning or losing. It's up to the prosecutors to argue the case and prove or not the claim.

Her comment was akin to saying that because you don't admit to wrongdoing doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong. It's up to the court to evaluate the evidence and determine who's right.

[Wild Cobra]

Every court case starts with the possibility of winning or losing. It's up to the prosecutors to argue the case and prove or not the claim.

Yes, but there need to be a better possibility that there is an actual case.

[ElNono]

Yes, but there need to be a better possibility that there is an actual case.

The SCOTUS didn't dismiss the actual case(s) or even decide if discrimination took place, they only ruled whether they can obtain class action status.

Did you read the thread at all? There's some insightful comments from FWD et all.

[Wild Cobra]

The SCOTUS didn't dismiss the actual case(s) or even decide if discrimination took place, they only ruled whether they can obtain class action status.

Did you read the thread at all? There's some insightful comments from FWD et all.
Yes, your point?

Not enough evidence to make it a large case.

Who would pay WalMarts cost should they win, after spending how many millions defending against a "possible" case?

[ElNono]

Yes, your point?

Not enough evidence to make it a large case.

This is all already explained previously in the thread. Evidence has nothing to do with it. Please catch up.


Who would pay WalMarts cost should they win, after spending how many millions defending against a "possible" case?

That's how justice works. Every case is 'possible' until the allegations are either proven or not. Each side pay their attorney fees. This decision won't stop these women from suing individually if the choose to and requiring Walmart to have to defend themselves. That said, Walmart does have a recourse to recoup the costs. For example, by countersuing for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, etc if they think the women's cases are frivolous.

[FromWayDowntown]

Yes, your point?

Not enough evidence to make it a large case.

Who would pay WalMarts cost should they win, after spending how many millions defending against a "possible" case?

But even Justice Scalia seems to admit that there's probably enough evidence to make one case into a million separate cases.

And WalMart is going to pay its costs if it wins. That's the fundamental rule of law in this country in tort-like actions. The Plaintiffs are going to pay their costs (most likely) if they win, too.

The cases in which liability is absolute are few and far between. Is your argument that nobody should be able to bring a lawsuit unless liability is a certain thing?

[Wild Cobra]

The cases in which liability is absolute are few and far between. Is your argument that nobody should be able to bring a lawsuit unless liability is a certain thing?
Not at all. I'm saying individual cases, or regional groups would be OK. Just not nationwide.

I don't like class action suits to begin with. Only the lawyers win. I don't know how many times I have been contacted by money grubbing lawyers saying I can be included. When I see the pitiful awards per person, I cringe that those who truly have a case got as little as the person who didn't.

[hater]

I don't get it.

If your son beats a kid into a coma. Aren't you liable?

If Walmart's managers were discriminating, why isn't Walmart liable?

answer: too big to sue

[Blake]

I don't like class action suits to begin with. Only the lawyers win. I don't know how many times I have been contacted by money grubbing lawyers saying I can be included. When I see the pitiful awards per person, I cringe that those who truly have a case got as little as the person who didn't.

So your definition of "win" is lots of money.

[Blake]

I don't get it.

If your son beats a kid into a coma. Aren't you liable?

If Walmart's managers were discriminating, why isn't Walmart liable?

answer: too big to sue

wrong answer.

[ElNono]

I don't get it.

If your son beats a kid into a coma. Aren't you liable?

If Walmart's managers were discriminating, why isn't Walmart liable?

answer: too big to sue

Walmart is certainly allegedly liable. The difference here is that every person discriminated against needs to sue individually.

[hater]

Walmart is certainly allegedly liable. The difference here is that every person discriminated against needs to sue individually.

if sued individually Walmart's lawyers would have a good laugh. So that's not an option.

[ElNono]

if sued individually Walmart's lawyers would have a good laugh. So that's not an option.

The victims individually will probably get compensated better should they win. However, I agree that this does very little to entice Walmart to change their ways.

[Wild Cobra]

The victims individually will probably get compensated better should they win. However, I agree that this does very little to entice Walmart to change their ways.
I wonder how much of this has to do with actual discrimination vs. perceived discrimination?

Besides, some discrimination is understandable. I'll only give one example, please don't try to make more of it than it is.

Women are often these days single mothers. Many cannot do what is expected of them in many cases the same as what men can do for a company. When you reach such positions, those who have less personal interference to the job will be promoted more readily. It isn't necessarily a prejudice based on sex, but on job work availability.

How many times do such things get perceived as an improper discrimination?

[ElNono]

I wonder how much of this has to do with actual discrimination vs. perceived discrimination?

I'm sure the courts will be able to determine that based on the evidence.

[Blake]

if sued individually Walmart's lawyers would have a good laugh. So that's not an option.

Depending on the case, it's absolutely an option.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm sure the courts will be able to determine that based on the evidence.
Maybe, maybe not.

I'll admit to being prejudiced in believing most cases of prejudice have no merit.

[ElNono]

Some discrimination is understandable. I'll only give one example, please don't try to make more of it than it is.

smh

Awarding a job upon availability is not discrimination. I don't know how you could construe it as such.

I'm not sure how single mothers fit in the equation if they claim to be available and ready for the job.

Frankly, I'm not sure I want to know either.

[ElNono]

Maybe, maybe not.
I'll admit to being prejudiced in believing most cases of prejudice have no merit.

I'm not surprised you think that at all. Perhaps one of these days you'll be on the receiving end of one of these lawsuits and have to learn the hard way that discrimination is a serious offense.

[SnakeBoy]

Class action suits are generally great for the lawyers not the plantiffs so I don't see a problem with this decision.

[Wild Cobra]

smh

Awarding a job upon availability is not discrimination. I don't know how you could construe it as such.

I'm not sure how single mothers fit in the equation if they claim to be available and ready for the job.

Frankly, I'm not sure I want to know either.
Discrimination has more meaning outside of discriminating against race, sex, etc. In fact, the whole hiring process is that of discrimination, to find the best suited employees. Discrimination based on performance, job skills, communication skills, schooling, etc.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm not surprised you think that at all. Perhaps one of these days you'll be on the receiving end of one of these lawsuits and have to learn the hard way that discrimination is a serious offense.
LOL...

Thought you would have more fun with that.

Sue me? Over what. I have no power over others.

[ElNono]

Discrimination has more meaning outside of discriminating against race, sex, etc. In fact, the whole hiring process is that of discrimination, to find the best suited employees. Discrimination based on performance, job skills, communication skills, schooling, etc.

Sure, discrimination can come in a variety of ways. That said, certain basis for discrimination are outlawed. I personally would call the hiring process for the most part a process of elimination. Some people will not fit the bill because of lack of availability, lack of qualifications, etc. I wouldn't say that's discriminatory. If the hiring person don't like redheads, and wants to discriminate by hair color, he's entitled to do so.


LOL...
Thought you would have more fun with that.
Sue me? Over what. I have no power over others.

You're selling yourself short. You don't think there might be a piece of the good old american dream waiting for you in the future?

[Wild Cobra]

Sure, discrimination can come in a variety of ways. That said, certain basis for discrimination are outlawed. I personally would call the hiring process for the most part a process of elimination. Some people will not fit the bill because of lack of availability, lack of qualifications, etc. I wouldn't say that's discriminatory. If the hiring person don't like redheads, and wants to discriminate by hair color, he's entitled to do so.
Now here's where the problem lies. How do you know when there was or was not a proper type of discrimination used. Very hard to know for sure. Only a small number of cases are clear.

You're selling yourself short. You don't think there might be a piece of the good old american dream waiting for you in the future?
I never wanted to have a business or have such power over others. I have been in management type rolls, and I can make the tough positions, but I'm actually a softy when it comes to doing anything negative against a person. I would have too hard a time living with myself making proper business decisions. That said, I like being a Parts Changer. Been doing it since 1975.

[Winehole23]

Now here's where the problem lies. How do you know when there was or was not a proper type of discrimination used. Very hard to know for sure. Only a small number of cases are clear.That's what the courts are for.

[boutons_deux]

Walmart discrimination win highlights claims of court bias

By Richard McGregor in Washington

Published: June 21 2011 22:11 | Last updated: June 21 2011 22:11

The US Supreme Court’s decision in favour of Walmart in a sex discrimination suit has highlighted what many lawyers see as a now well-entrenched pro-business majority on the powerful legal body.

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/40f8f9b4-9c3f-11e0-acbc-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1Q2VALlnj

a study by legal scholars for the New York Times which analysed 1,450 cases since 1953 concluded that the Roberts court had both agreed to hear more business cases, and found in favour of business interests more often.

The study found that the Roberts court had ruled in favour of business in 61 per cent of the cases before it, compared to 42 for all courts since 1953.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/40f8f9b4-9c3f-11e0-acbc-00144feabdc0.html?ftcamp=rss#axzz1Q2URy1Ee

==========

VRWC's decades long campaign to stuff the courts at all levels with extremem right-wingers so as to bias judgments for wealthy and Corporate-Americans against Human-Americans is paying off big, and will remain in force for decades.

[boutons_deux]

Wal-Mart Is Only The Second Worst Class Action Case This Supreme Court Term

Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes is a huge blow to the more than 1 million women who alleged rampant and systematic gender discrimination against the retail giant. The court’s decision will still allow each of the individual women to bring their own case against Walmart, but they will not be able to join together in a class action. For this reason, thousands of these workers will decide that their case isn’t worth the multi-year hassle of an individual lawsuit. Thousands more will discover that they cannot afford to hire an attorney to bring their case. And thousands more on top of that will be forced to hire attorneys who are far less equipped to take on a major corporation than the elite legal team attracted by a large class action.

Nevertheless, Wal-Mart is only the second-biggest blow the Supreme Court dealt to workers, consumers and other people who need class actions to vindicate their rights during its current term.

Two months ago, the Court handed down a 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion , permitting corporations to refuse to do business with anyone who refuses to sign away their right to bring a class action lawsuit. As a result of this decision, Walmart need never worry about a class action again — they can simply tell all of their workers to sign away their rights or they’re fired.

Nor is Walmart alone in being able to take advantage of Concepcion. Cell phone companies, credit card companies, banks, and even nursing homes have all used similar traps to force their consumers into a privatized arbitration system that overwhelmingly favors corporate parties. After Concepcion, they can all just add a “no class action” clause to those contracts and usher in an era where consumer and worker class actions are a thing of the past.


http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/21/249820/wal-mart-second-worst/

[Wild Cobra]

That's what the courts are for.
I meant in the courts. It's hard to get evidence that cannot be countered with other possible reasons.

[boutons_deux]

"That's what the courts are for."

SCOTUS decisions and corporate/employer you-can't-sue-me contracts keep people out of the courts.

[ElNono]

I meant in the courts. It's hard to get evidence that cannot be countered with other possible reasons.

Depends on the case. That you can counter it with other possible reasons doesn't mean that the jury is going to buy it or that it's a better explanation than the presented evidence. These are civil cases, you don't need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.

[Wild Cobra]

Depends on the case. That you can counter it with other possible reasons doesn't mean that the jury is going to buy it or that it's a better explanation than the presented evidence. These are civil cases, you don't need to prove something beyond reasonable doubt.
Which makes it even worse sometimes in that people on juries are usually those who don't work, or are too dumb to get out of jury duty. I was appalled at fellow jury members on a civil case i was on once. Too many of them had the attitude to give the plaintiff the money just because she was suing deep pockets. Their thought had nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

Ever been on a civil case? Ever have to decide how much is paid?

[ElNono]

Which makes it even worse sometimes in that people on juries are usually those who don't work, or are too dumb to get out of jury duty. I was appalled at fellow jury members on a civil case i was on once. Too many of them had the attitude to give the plaintiff the money just because she was suing deep pockets. Their thought had nothing to do with innocence or guilt.

That's how the justice system in this country has worked forever. I can see how an authoritarian like you would have a problem with your opinion not being that of the rest of the jury.


Ever been on a civil case? Ever have to decide how much is paid?

Not a citizen yet. Maybe next year.

[Wild Cobra]

Not a citizen yet. Maybe next year.
If you ever get jury duty, make the best of it. It can be a real eye opener.

[ElNono]

Will do.

[boutons_deux]

Wal-Mart’s Authoritarian Culture

The underlying issue, which the Supreme Court has now ratified, is Wal-Mart’s authoritarian style, by which executives pressure store-level management to squeeze more and more from millions of clerks, stockers and lower-tier managers.

Indeed, the sex discrimination at Wal-Mart that drove the recent suit is the product not merely of managerial bias and prejudice, but also of a corporate culture and business model that sustains it, rooted in the company’s very beginnings.

In the 1950s and ’60s, northwest Arkansas, where Wal-Mart got its start, was poor, white and rural, in the midst of a wave of agricultural mechanization that generated a huge surplus of unskilled workers. To these men and women, the burgeoning chain of discount stores founded by Sam Walton was a godsend. The men might find dignity managing a store instead of a hardscrabble farm, while their wives and daughters could earn pin money clerking for Mr. Sam, as he was known. “The enthusiasm of Wal-Mart associates toward their jobs is one of the company’s greatest assets,” declared the firm’s 1973 annual report.

A patriarchal ethos was written into the Wal-Mart DNA. “Welcome Assistant Managers and Wives” read a banner at a 1975 meeting for executive trainees. And that corporate culture — “the single most important element in the continued, remarkable success of Wal-Mart,” asserted Don Soderquist, the company’s chief operating officer in the 1990s — was sustained not only by the hypercentralized managerial control that flowed from the Bentonville, Ark., home office but by the evangelical Protestantism that Mr. Soderquist and other executives encouraged.

, for all the change that has swept over the company, at the store level there is still a fair amount of the old communal sociability. Recognizing that workers steeped in that culture make poor candidates for assistant managers, who are the front lines in enforcing labor discipline, Wal-Mart insists that almost all workers promoted to the managerial ranks move to a new store, often hundreds of miles away.

For young men in a hurry, that’s an inconvenience; for middle-aged women caring for families, this corporate reassignment policy amounts to sex discrimination. True, Wal-Mart is hardly alone in demanding that rising managers sacrifice family life, but few companies make relocation such a fixed policy, and few have employment rolls even a third the size.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/opinion/22Lichtenstein.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print