Class Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-12-08/class-action-suit-against-wal-mart
On Monday the Supreme Court agreed to review what could become the largest employment discrimination case in U.S. history. The case, originally filed in 2001, centers on the claim that as many as 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were paid less than their male counterparts and were given fewer promotions. At stake are potentially billions in back pay and punitive damages. The Supreme Court has decided to hear Wal-Marts bid to block the suit on the grounds that thousand of individual personnel decisions do not constitute the basis for a class action suit: Arguments for and against and limits of class action litigation.
Guests
Joseph Sellers
attorney, head of the civil rights & employment practice group,Cohen Milstein
Jonathan Cohn
attorney, Sidley Austin
Alexandra LaHav
professor of law, University of Connecticut
John Coffee
professor of corporate law,Columbia University
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Here we go again. With no check on the 5 conservative Justices we see many unreasonable pro-corporate decisions. Several of these men see no conflict of interest in holding interests in firms before them, or in socializing with lobbyists for these mammoth concerns or in having relatives involved as interested parties in the decisions, or as regulatory bureaucrats. (We have the appearance of collusion and corruption.) Ideologically, they argue , that the Founding Fathers (original intent) found the interests of the wealthiest and of juggernaut business to be paramount, and viewed human rights as optional. It will be a long time before these relatively young and healthy appointees die or retire. For decades they will cripple our nation. I confidently predict that sacred cow Walmart (really a Chinese firedrill) will be let off the hook. Women are third class citizens, after all, unless they be a sister, daughter or spouse of a noble powerful male are property of their patriarchs and employers. (Read the original language. For the Fascist 5 nothing has changed in 250 years that cannot be rescinded.)
Diane, the cynic in me says that this law suit isn't so much about the women being promoted as it is about the money. I'm sure the ladies were passed over for one reason or another be it legitimate or not. But billions of dollars are at stake, the main question is who will be the main recipient of the settlement, the individual women or the lawyers?
I am going to make a prediction right now: 5-4 in favor of WALMART. My view of the Supreme Court is entirely cynical.
Bush v Gore started the cynicism and it's support of conservative views has been clear ever since. I feel my cynicism
is widely held in this nation. It's credibility is tainted.
Class cohesion: So, everyone agrees that infractions or torts have been committed, but because the perpetrator possesses the power to compartmentalize victims it is immune from redress. Under this reasoning, if I want to torture kittens I can keep them in various boxes and not let them see one another, and by this method avoid animal abuse prosecution. By the same token, if I traffic slaves and sex slaves I am totally immune if I do it in a compartmentalized way. No wonder the NAZIs built so many camps.
My concern that women be compensated individually and proportionately is offset by the deterrent value of a sizable fine and a firm judgment and enforcement. Too big to sue is now being added to too big to fail. It is unrealistic to think individual low-waged women would be able to sue independently. So insufficient cohesion is tantamount to dismissal of a valid claim.
Law according to the letter and without spirit is complementary to tyranny, for a particular privileged class writes and interprets the law for their own advantage. The wealth and income gap and the justice gap amount to the same thing.
David in NC (last caller) seems to subscribe to the theory that your employer owns you mind and body while you're at work, and to a lesser degree in your private time. I expect he may be an abusive and discriminating small employer, or is representing the interests of his oppressive employer.
David may intuitively know that under the present employment situation in NC that Wal-Mart, or an even worse employer, is the only game in town, and is often the only option for income. Take it or leave it under duress of hunger, winter cold and homelessness is not freedom. Indoctrinated and intimidated men like David mistake hierarchical loyalty for freedom. They believe only the rich and powerful dispense all, and that they themselves or others in the same fix possess no rights not given or bought. These poor souls live in a wolfpack and have not experienced humane society. Such is the paucity of socialization and education in this country. I meet some "David" on the road every night who refuses to dim his headlights.
Whenever I hear that we have the best legal system in the world, I wonder for whom?
I was fired by my employer after I filed an EEOC complaint of discrimination. I am a Black female forced to take on the full time job of a white male employee as well as the full time job I held at the same time. In essence I was expected to perform the responsibilities of two full jobs for less than the price of one.
I was fired while I was off recuperating from a workplace injury.
I filed a retaliatory complaint with the EEOC that was undecided for a year before I was issued a Notice of Right to Sue.
Three and a half years later, 11 days before the case was to go to trial the judge dismissed it because the white male had to do only one job rather than the two jobs I was expected to perform. So the judge determined that we did not have similar circumstances because the white male was expected to perform only the single job.
I am appealing the dismissal but legal fees will cost $20,000 for a job that paid me $39,000 a year.
Finding a competent attorney who was willing to take a case a single employee who is not earning a bundle was a challenge.
It looks as if it will take 5 years or more for my case to be brought to trial IF I win the appeal. And if I win the appeal and win at trial, the attorney will take a third.
What will become of us and our legal system if regular people can't afford justice? It is impossible for a individual employee to go to court without an attorney. The courts are hostile to citizens that have not passed the bar.
American workers are the backbone of the economy but we are treated like the enemy. Employees with grievances about mistreatment are fired under some pretext. The discrimination laws were supposed to protect us.
I support legitimate discrimination claims, but attorneys really aren't particularly noble. I hold them in esteem as I do investment bankers; if they win they will receive 30% to 40% of the total awarded damages. The lawyers and their firms will become fabulously wealthy(ier). As an example, if the class includes one million plaintiffs and the award is $1 billion the lawyers would receive $300 million to $400 million for their efforts and each plaintiff would receive $600 or $700 each. How is that for fairness? In my view lawyers in these large class actions are obscenely overpaid, but of course that is why they litigate them.
I agree with your prediction and its origins.
The decision of the Supreme Court that Bush won the election led indirectly to the legal mess of GITMO.
In our elections, who is it that that represents the workers?
The mantra seems to be protect the business class at all costs. Businesses are only as good as the employees who provide the goods or services to consumers.
Have Americans forgotten why there was a need for The Equal Opportunity Commission? It was because many employees were being mistreated by their employers. Employees with a grievance are not evil. They simply want to be treated as well a similarly situated employee.
The Supreme Court has behaved disgracefully in looking out for the little guy.