As someone with tons of experience in class action litigation, today's decision will do significant damage to that trial lawyer "industry"--and that is exactly what it is. An industry.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110620/us_yblog_thelookout/supreme-court-sides-with-wal-mart-says-female-employees-cant-sue-in-class-action
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it does far more damage to the rule of law than it does to "trial lawyers." (whatever the hell that even means)
It seems to set the standard for proving discrimination impossibly high as a matter of law, rather than leaving it up to a jury as should be the case. On the bright side, if I want to discriminate against a protected class, now all I have to do is avoid putting that part in writing. (apparently; the article was pretty weak)
You're doing it again. Stick to what you know.
Quote from: guido911 on June 20, 2011, 06:45:53 PM
You're doing it again. Stick to what you know.
If I got it wrong, you might try posting an article that explains the situation clearly, rather than the piece of smile you did post.
Evidence was presented as to the attitudes of store managers, freely expressed to many employees. To refer to corporate policy is only an endorsement of Plausible Deniability. SCOTUS cuddles closer to the corporation. They really have gone too far with their agenda.
Clarence Thomas needs to be run out of office like the GOP did to Abe Fortis in the late 60's. He is a disgrace and embarrassment. Justice Thomas's tastes in legal briefs, by Matt Bors. http://freepress.org/cartoons.php?strFunc=display&strID=615&strYear=2011&strAuthor=5
Damn trial attorneys, always trying to get victims before a jury. How unamerican!
Per the merits of the case- to rule otherwise in this instance sets up a quota. X% of workforce is female, you need x% to be managers. Given the facts of this case, you can't do that.
Walmart will get popped by smaller classes in this matter. "All females who think they've been slighted" was a weak class.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 21, 2011, 07:14:25 AM
Damn trial attorneys, always trying to get victims before a jury. How unamerican!
Per the merits of the case- to rule otherwise in this instance sets up a quota. X% of workforce is female, you need x% to be managers. Given the facts of this case, you can't do that.
Walmart will get popped by smaller classes in this matter. "All females who think they've been slighted" was a weak class.
Is it possible that the class action fragmented the plaintiffs enough so that each individual suit wouldn't be worth it from a time or money standpoint?
Could some women come together and somehow make smaller "classes" for group suits? From what I gather, the decision didn't address the merits of the case, but rather addressed the standing of the the class only.
An even better proposal for Wal Mart is to not shop there at all. The last time I was in a Wal Mart store I had a bit of an eye raising experience, in addition to most of the stuff there being pure garbage, most of what I saw was HIGHER PRICED not lower priced than what I was used to paying for equivalent items at a competitor. Just because they say they have the lowest prices, doesn't mean they do. Sort of like Fox is "fair and balanced". ;D
Bring back OTASCO!
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 11:57:38 AM
Bring back OTASCO!
Call up Riklis and tell him....this comment proves you know nothing about so little. Actually, if you knew anything about this case study you would understand why the republicans in congress are dooming this country. Very similar premise: greed!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:17:38 PM
Call up Riklis and tell him....this comment proves you know nothing about so little. Actually, if you knew anything about this case study you would understand why the republicans in congress are dooming this country. Very similar premise: greed!
What? Bringing back smaller regional and/or local chains like OTASCO or TG&Y is a bad thing? They had a better handle on HR issues via being smaller as well as being more service rather than price driven type establishments. You can thank giants like Wal-Mart who helped make smaller retailers irrelevant while creating a high demand for former American jobs overseas.
The Republicans in Congress have nothing to do with this opinion by SCROTUS.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 03:24:34 PM
What? Bringing back smaller regional and/or local chains like OTASCO or TG&Y is a bad thing? They had a better handle on HR issues via being smaller as well as being more service rather than price driven type establishments. You can thank giants like Wal-Mart who helped make smaller retailers irrelevant while creating a high demand for former American jobs overseas.
The Republicans in Congress have nothing to do with this opinion by SCROTUS.
Quit writing....OTASCO was a part of a huge conglomerate floated with junk bond financing. It was built with the backs of their employees and then smashed by greedy stockholders many years later.
Sam used to steal his concepts from them. He just didn't treat his employees as well so his family could grow....still happening.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 03:24:34 PM
The Republicans in Congress have nothing to do with this opinion by SCROTUS.
We no longer have a citizen responsive government (both branches), Supreme Court...or a 4th estate. They're all bought and paid for....especially the right wingnut clown judicial activists on SCOTUS.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 21, 2011, 07:14:25 AM
Damn trial attorneys, always trying to get victims before a jury. How unamerican!
Per the merits of the case- to rule otherwise in this instance sets up a quota. X% of workforce is female, you need x% to be managers. Given the facts of this case, you can't do that.
Walmart will get popped by smaller classes in this matter. "All females who think they've been slighted" was a weak class.
Have you ever been in a class action lawsuit from the beginning? No, I am not talking about having a person that might be a member of the class. From the beginning. That's were my disdain for trial lawyers comes from in this regard. And do not even get me started as to who really makes money in these type of cases where they are "trying to get victims before a jury."
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:33:29 PM
Quit writing....OTASCO was a part of a huge conglomerate floated with junk bond financing. It was built with the backs of their employees and then smashed by greedy stockholders many years later.
Sam used to steal his concepts from them. He just didn't treat his employees as well so his family could grow....still happening.
Why would you think I'd be envisioning the bastardized and over-leveraged version of smaller retail chains? I don't like 100,000 sq. ft. big boxes. I like smaller retailers which can operate with 5-10 employees like Weslakes, or the Ace store on 31st where I can stop in and shoot the smile with Jim Sweeney.
Get out of my brain clown.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 03:51:37 PM
Why would you think I'd be envisioning the bastardized and over-leveraged version of smaller retail chains? I don't like 100,000 sq. ft. big boxes. I like smaller retailers which can operate with 5-10 employees like Weslakes, or the Ace store on 31st where I can stop in and shoot the smile with Jim Sweeney.
Get out of my brain clown.
So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail? Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:56:25 PM
So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail? Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.
When they build a better mouse trap, the only ones that get upset are the mice.
good one! beers on me....Conan, take a nap!
Quote from: Teatownclown on June 21, 2011, 03:56:25 PM
So, you don't understand greed and the necessary "growth" to getting there in retail? Those you mention are franchises hoping some day to be 1000,000 sq.ft. with 20-30 employees but a whole lot bigger margins for profit. Who you kidding? Where are all the mom and pops? History.
At some point, people will begin to place higher priority on service in a smaller setting over convenience and selection, as well as quality goods when they realize what the cheapening of our goods has done to the American economy as a whole.
The fact that you can still buy a washer and dryer or refrigerator for about what you could buy it for 20 years ago says a lot about why our unemployment is stuck and likely will be stuck at 9% as well as our GDP just barely loping along. Cheaper parts made by cheaper labor and assembled by even cheaper labor because we think cheap goods are, well, good.
Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'd really like to see a retail revolution where people place value and true service over price.
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2011, 03:48:21 PM
And do not even get me started as to who really makes money in these type of cases where they are "trying to get victims before a jury."
Wait a minute. Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future? I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?
Quote from: Ed W on June 21, 2011, 04:41:52 PM
Wait a minute. Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future? I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?
Any of the suits I've been in the class for, the attorneys have gotten truckloads of money and the plaintiffs got vouchers or a few bucks credited to their account.
One in particular I recall was for Ford Mustang owners. I don't remember what the original cause was, I do recall that the attorneys got $15mm cash, the plaintiffs got a voucher for $500 off if they bought a new Ford in the next six months. Are you bucking kidding me? I have to spend $25K or whatever to be made whole again while the attorneys walk with major cash?
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 04:40:37 PM
At some point, people will begin to place higher priority on service in a smaller setting over convenience and selection, as well as quality goods when they realize what the cheapening of our goods has done to the American economy as a whole.
The fact that you can still buy a washer and dryer or refrigerator for about what you could buy it for 20 years ago says a lot about why our unemployment is stuck and likely will be stuck at 9% as well as our GDP just barely loping along. Cheaper parts made by cheaper labor and assembled by even cheaper labor because we think cheap goods are, well, good.
Maybe I'm too much of a dreamer, but I'd really like to see a retail revolution where people place value and true service over price.
I might also add that wages have been flat for a long long time. In truth, we can only afford to pay for consumer items that remain affordable or get cheaper.
Quote from: nathanm on June 20, 2011, 09:23:54 PM
If I got it wrong, you might try posting an article that explains the situation clearly, rather than the piece of smile you did post.
I am tired of you coming off like a know-it-all on every damned subject. And NO. I am not going to waste my time educating you. Do your own research.
Quote from: we vs us on June 21, 2011, 04:51:43 PM
I might also add that wages have been flat for a long long time. In truth, we can only afford to pay for consumer items that remain affordable or get cheaper.
Or would wages rise if we were willing to pay more for better quality, made by U.S. workers? It's another chicken v. egg economic issue. Not being sarcastic, but what do you see as a solution for that?
And BTW, is that John Corbett (Northern Exposure, Big Fat Greek Wedding) in your avatar?
Quote from: Ed W on June 21, 2011, 04:41:52 PM
Wait a minute. Do you work for free, Guido? What's a reasonable fee for taking on a class action case that might, just might, pay off sometime in the future? I think we can assume that these attorneys aren't charging the clients up front, so their only hope of getting paid is if they win. So what's reasonable for taking a gamble like that?
Ed. I do not think you understand what really happens behind the scenes in these cases. Class action cases are not remotely close to a personal injury case. Hell, in many of these, the first year or two is nothing but big law firms informing to the court on how great they are so they get to be lead counsel. Sorry CF, but having litigated numerous class cases, the only victims are ultimately the members and not from any injury they had initially received. Oh, and Conan's right.
Wevus:
The case was not and has not been decided on the merits. They said 1.3 million women from part time checkers to storemanagers trying to get into corporate was not a "similarily situated class". One justive said there was no glue holding the class together.
They will break the class up - part timers denied full time because they are women, managers who hit a glass celing, young mothers denied entry into salary, etc.
Even the 3 scotus women wanted to send the case back down to have the class status evaluated under a different test/standard/theory.
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2011, 05:09:33 PM
I am tired of you coming off like a know-it-all on every damned subject. And NO. I am not going to waste my time educating you. Do your own research.
That's all in your head, my man. You post shitty article, I respond to the issue as presented, because that's the limit of my knowledge about the ruling. You then complain that I didn't know more. Odd. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, it helps to provide references.
Quote from: cannon_fodder on June 21, 2011, 05:18:30 PM
Wevus:
Even the 3 scotus women wanted to send the case back down to have the class status evaluated under a different test/standard/theory.
And I agree with that. The lumping of all the women together, despite the differing facts and job positions. I heard Hall Estell is part of this mess. Do you know?
Quote from: nathanm on June 21, 2011, 05:19:51 PM
That's all in your head, my man. You post shitty article, I respond to the issue as presented, because that's the limit of my knowledge about the ruling. You then complain that I didn't know more. Odd. If you want to have a reasonable discussion, it helps to provide references.
My article was "shitty". Well here is its text:
QuoteThe U.S. Supreme Court sided with Walmart today, ruling that female employees can't sue the retail giant in a class action alleging wage discrimination.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April 2010 that the employees could sue, which left Walmart open to $1.6 billion in damages, the AP reports. The Supreme Court said lawyers failed to identify a corporate policy that resulted in thousands of women at Sam's Club and Walmart stores being paid less than their male peers.
Walmart's 3,400 store managers across the country decide who gets promoted, a subjective policy that the justices ruled today the company could not be held liable for. Eighty-six percent of those managers are men, the LA Times reported, even though two-thirds of Walmart's employees are women.
The court had not looked at a class-action certification suit in more than a decade, Bloomberg reports.
Correction: An earlier version of this report incorrectly stated the Supreme Court decision was unanimous. The court unanimously agreed the case was wrongly certified as a 23(b)2 class action, but dissented 5-4 over whether the women could all prove they were discriminated on by their sex. Forbes has a good explanation here.
What specifically is "shitty" about it wiseass? Oh, I know what happened. You never bothered reading any of the several hyperlinked references in that Yahoo summary piece which provided in depth analysis of the decision did you before going all Clavin. Now, you want blame your being caught with posting idiocy on the article. Here's an idea for next time. Don't like my article, read another one. And again, do your own damned research.
I read what you linked, bud. It misled. Get over it.
Quote from: nathanm on June 21, 2011, 05:42:57 PM
I read what you linked, bud. It misled. Get over it.
Well no one else seems to think so. Maybe it was above your thinking skills. Or maybe, you put on your "fly off the handle" goggles before you started running your damned mouth.
I think the only ones here talking specifically about the article you posted are you and I. Nice appeal to authority, though. It was as smooth as a Tulsa road.
Quote from: Conan71 on June 21, 2011, 05:12:39 PM
Or would wages rise if we were willing to pay more for better quality, made by U.S. workers? It's another chicken v. egg economic issue. Not being sarcastic, but what do you see as a solution for that?
And BTW, is that John Corbett (Northern Exposure, Big Fat Greek Wedding) in your avatar?
MY avvy is Jack Nicholson from The Shining. Cribbed it from this excellent site -- http://iwdrm.tumblr.com/ -- whose author(s?) do nothing but make high quality .gifs from movie scenes. Such a cool little blog.
Quote from: nathanm on June 21, 2011, 05:58:49 PM
I think the only ones here talking specifically about the article you posted are you and I. Nice appeal to authority reality, though. It was as smooth as a Tulsa road.
fify. The only reason you and I are talking about is because EVERYONE BUT YOU understood the article, perhaps took the time to read the references in it, and thought before they posted.
Quote from: guido911 on June 21, 2011, 08:12:11 PM
fify. The only reason you and I are talking about is because EVERYONE BUT YOU understood the article, perhaps took the time to read the references in it, and thought before they posted.
Or felt that it was lacking in critical detail and therefore decided to pass on commenting on a lacking article.