Wal-Mart women denied discrimination class action

Jun 20, 2011 11:27

The US Supreme Court has dismissed the largest class action lawsuit in history, ruling against women alleging discrimination by US giant Wal-Mart.

The court ruled that 1.5 million women who said they were paid less because of gender must pursue action individually. Plaintiffs had sought to unite more than a million women in their effort.
The ( Read more... )

united states, the 'justice' system, work/employment

Leave a comment

Comments 25

(The comment has been removed)

subluxate June 20 2011, 19:12:07 UTC
Pretty much. It's on the bus route, it's cheap, everything's there.

Fucking hate them, but when income's way limited, you know?

And seriously, fuck Scalia. Oh, it's not written policy! Then it's okay!

Reply

lady_leia_solo June 20 2011, 19:34:07 UTC
Yeah that's pretty much the reason I shop there. It's on the bus route and since I'm on a limited income, it's right in my price range. I cash my checks there because it's lower than other places and I have a fine at my bank of choice that I need to pay. Sigh..

But what are the alternatives to shopping at Walmart? I live in a city with about 200,000 people, so I'm wondering if there are better alternatives that are affordable for my price range.

Reply

subluxate June 20 2011, 19:40:16 UTC
It depends on your city, really. When my partner and I lived with my parents last, we were saving money to move, and we were fortunately within walking distance of a Safeway, which was reasonably priced as long as we bought generic. (There wasn't a Wal-Mart very close by to my parents' house, either, and that's yet another sign of Wal-Mart intruding into poor areas. When we lived in a low-income apartment in the same city, the closest place to shop decently was Wal-Mart.)

Here, in a much smaller, much poorer town, my partner shops at Wal-Mart for quite a few things, because it is on the bus route and cheap for us, too. She can hit HyVee sometimes, but their selection isn't anywhere near as good, and they cost more on some things. It's really hard to avoid Wal-Mart if you're poor, and I hate that, a lot.

Reply


darth_snarky June 20 2011, 18:47:59 UTC
It was also a divided, 5-4 decision. I think for a Supreme Court case, more details are needed.

For example:

The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.

In a broader question in the Wal-Mart case, the court divided 5-to-4 along ideological lines on whether the suit satisfied a requirement of the class-action rules that “there are questions of law or fact common to the class.”

And on the dissenting side:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented in part. Justice Ginsburg said the court had gone too far in its broader ruling ( ... )

Reply

brewsternorth June 20 2011, 18:50:40 UTC
I thought Kagan was abstaining from this one due to her previous role in the case? She probably would've been the fifth dissenter though.

Reply

darth_snarky June 20 2011, 18:57:08 UTC
Sounds like she didn't abstain. It's a pity Kennedy wasn't a swing vote this time (though, I'm not sure a case like this is one where he would).

Reply

brewsternorth June 20 2011, 18:58:19 UTC
Must've been thinking of another case then, d'oh!

Reply


popehippo June 20 2011, 19:21:11 UTC
I've got nothin'.


... )

Reply

darth_snarky June 20 2011, 19:27:10 UTC
o/t, but where is that angry Alan Rickman gif from?

Reply


bseidler June 20 2011, 20:28:55 UTC
"Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together"

I don't understand, isn't the glue the discrimination of women? It's obvious a corporation like Wal-mart will operate in the grey as much as possible for legal deniability...but 1.5 million women backed by statistics and case anecdotal evidence, how does that not scream something should be done?

The assurance that women can still make claims individually is a slap in the face, because most individual women won't have enough money for a lawyer and might not stand to be reimbursed for the cost even if they did win. Wal-mart can easily afford to keep these things in trial for years, but the actual women who are suffering because of this can't.

Reply

cekaycutie June 20 2011, 22:02:23 UTC
THIS THIS THIS!! you said it perfectly, just what I'm thinking. Ugh this makes me so mad and upset.

Reply


terry_terrible June 21 2011, 00:10:04 UTC
Women and workers loose, Kleptocracy wins again.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up