Walmart wins

[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 en led 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 en led 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/0/40f8f9b4-9...#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/0/40f8f...#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/201...-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.