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... )
Comments 25
(The comment has been removed)
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
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
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
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
Reply
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Reply
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
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment