0.000375%

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by boedicca, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,758
    Thanks Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,700
    So, six women are suing Walmart; and the Supreme Court is going to rule on whether or not they can sweep in 1.6M women into a class action suit.

    Should 0.000375% of a group be able to force the rest to join a cause which they haven't chosen?

    Of course, the real beneficiaries will be the trial lawyers.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. random3434
    Offline

    random3434 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2008
    Messages:
    25,903
    Thanks Received:
    7,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +7,194
    It would be cool if we knew what you were talking about! ;)

    Are they suing for their bad taste in clothes?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,758
    Thanks Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,700
    I read so much business press, I some times assume that people are already familiar with the news item.

    Sorry.

    The case is about discrimination regarding pay and promotions.

    The Supreme Court appears ready to block a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of up to 1.6 million women, and that could make it harder for other workers nationwide to bring class-action claims against large employers.

    The 10-year-old lawsuit, argued in lively exchanges at the court Tuesday, claims that Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest employer, favors men over women in pay and promotions. Billions of dollars are at stake if it is allowed to go forward.

    The case also could affect the future of other class-action lawsuits that pool modest individual claims into a single action that creates the potential for a large judgment and increases the pressure on businesses to settle.

    In Tuesday's arguments, several justices suggested they were troubled by the case and lower court decisions against Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart. Estimates of how many women could be included in the lawsuit run from 500,000 to 1.6 million.

    Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a key vote on the high court, said the women's argument points in apparently conflicting directions.

    "You said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that's going on," Kennedy said to Joseph Sellers, the women's lawyer. "Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion. It seems to me there's an inconsistency there, and I'm just not sure what the unlawful policy is."...


    High court may block Wal-Mart sex-bias lawsuit | The Montgomery Advertiser | montgomeryadvertiser.com
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. martybegan
    Offline

    martybegan Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2010
    Messages:
    29,281
    Thanks Received:
    3,999
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +10,906
  5. FuelRod
    Offline

    FuelRod Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2011
    Messages:
    3,387
    Thanks Received:
    920
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Ratings:
    +924
    That's exactly right - trial lawyers. In the end the 1.6 million defendants will likely end up with settlements along the lines of the percentage you gave.
     
  6. Cecilie1200
    Offline

    Cecilie1200 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2008
    Messages:
    26,879
    Thanks Received:
    3,720
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Ratings:
    +7,052
    I'm curious to see how they're going to prove that WalMart's decisions regarding pay and promotions is based solely on sex discrimination, rather than . . . oh, I don't know, the women in question just being lousy employees?

    Unless one is simply willing to accept the argument at face value, it's a tough one to really, truly PROVE.
     
  7. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,758
    Thanks Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,700
    Personally, if I were a woman working at Walmart and happy with my job, I would not want to be used by trial lawyers in this manner.
     
  8. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    class actions aren't about the amount of money to each individual plaintiff, they are about making a company STOP doing something or start doing something. it is not possible for individual plaintiffs to carry the cost of such litigations which would mean the wrong-doers keep doing whatever wrong is being done... or keep refusing to do whatever is needed to be done under the circumstances.

    reality of the walmart case: if the facts are as stated (and at this point, they have to be accepted as true for any judicial determination) is that the company has a policy of discriminating against women in terms of career advancement and wages. given that wal-mart is the second largest employer in the country, after the federal government, this is no small number of affected people.

    wal-mart's argument has been, essentially, that it is too big to be sued... that there are simply too many women for a class action to be appropriate. they say this because they know that if the class is de-certified, they can continue discriminating... same as in the ledbetter case. (hence my being pretty sure, and also based on kennedy's questions during oral argument, that this court will, in fact de-certify).

    According to the plaintiffs managers at wal-mart said such things as (paraphrased but pretty close) "men need to support their families, so of course should make more money and have more advancement", and "G-d made Adam first, so women will always come second".

    Any woman who thinks those things are ok is an idiot.

    I think in your case, you just might want to reconsider. This idea that lawyers are horrible because they're mean to corporations and make them live up to their obligations is beyond me. Seriously...

    everyone gets paid for their work. the right has zero, zip, zilch problem with corporate CEO's earning limitless amounts of money and sucking away funds that should be used to compensate workers fairly. but they are troubled when lawyers make money doing their jobs?

    really?

    what i kind of have to say to that is...

    too bad.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. boedicca
    Offline

    boedicca Uppity Water Nymph Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2007
    Messages:
    41,758
    Thanks Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    2,250
    Location:
    The Land of Funk
    Ratings:
    +22,700
    Is 0.000375% a statistically valid sample to prove that a company systematically does anything?
     
  10. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,551
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,427
    if that's the number (and i haven't seen anything saying it is or isn't), then wal-mart shouldn't be whining about the class being too big, should they?




    didn't think so.
     

Share This Page