0.000375%

[boedicca]

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.

 

[random3434]

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.

It would be cool if we knew what you were talking about!

Are they suing for their bad taste in clothes?

 

[boedicca]

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

 

[martybegan]

Scotusblog link with all the yummy details.

Wal-Mart v. Dukes : SCOTUSblog

 

[FuelRod]

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

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.

 

[boedicca]

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.

 

[jillian]

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.

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.

 

[boedicca]

Is 0.000375% a statistically valid sample to prove that a company systematically does anything?

 

[jillian]

Is 0.000375% a statistically valid sample to prove that a company systematically does anything?

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.

 

[boedicca]

Of course Walmart should protest class action status. 6 women are suing. If WMT is guilty, then let the women receive damages based upon their actual harm. Piling on faux damages for 1.6M other women who have not come forward to sue is the game trial lawyers play to jack up settlements and fees.

 

[George Costanza]

Of course Walmart should protest class action status. 6 women are suing. If WMT is guilty, then let the women receive damages based upon their actual harm. Piling on faux damages for 1.6M other women who have not come forward to sue is the game trial lawyers play to jack up settlements and fees.

You did read Jillian's post here, right?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/161598-0-000375-a.html#post3482192

 

[boedicca]

And her post is wrong.

Class Actions in The Real World are about blackmailing companies for enormous settlements for the benefit of trial attorneys.

 

[jillian]

And her post is wrong.

Class Actions in The Real World are about blackmailing companies for enormous settlements for the benefit of trial attorneys.

in your dreams, hack

 

[George Costanza]

And her post is wrong.

Class Actions in The Real World are about blackmailing companies for enormous settlements for the benefit of trial attorneys.

If you see them that way, there is little anyone can say or do to convince you otherwise. That is not the case, however.

 

[boedicca]

And her post is wrong.

Class Actions in The Real World are about blackmailing companies for enormous settlements for the benefit of trial attorneys.

in your dreams, hack

In reality, bubble girl.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

I agree w/ you. Women don't deserve = pay

 

[jillian]

And her post is wrong.

Class Actions in The Real World are about blackmailing companies for enormous settlements for the benefit of trial attorneys.

in your dreams, hack

In reality, bubble girl.

*yawn*

 

[boedicca]

And here's some perspective as to the money at stake:

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 permits each victim of unlawful discrimination to recover damages of up to $300,000. The plaintiffs seek punitive damages of between $450 and $510 billion (1.5 to 1.7 million women times $300,000). In order to shoehorn the case into a class action, their lawyers argue that money is "incidental" and "secondary." In other words, the Dukes plaintiffs seek, literally, a half a trillion dollars in punitive damages alone while their lawyers contend that money is something of an afterthought.

Willie Sutton Was a Piker - WSJ.com


So let' assume a $100B settlement. A typical contingency fee for a smaller case would be at least 20% (perhaps even over 30%) - but for this amount, let's assume a lodestar calculation of 5% (a very low amount) which results in $5B for the attorneys.

Even if the balance of the proceeds were fairly divided up among the 1.6M women (ha, like that ever happens), the max each would get is $59K.

$5B for a little group of attorneys.

Each woman they exploited gets $59K.

Groovy.

 

[jillian]

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.

I agree w/ you. Women don't deserve = pay

she's also lying about the numbers or wal-mart wouldn't be challenging class certification based on the size of the class, which is, according to their court papers, potentially 1.5 million, at least that's what they said in the petition for certiorari.

The district court certified a sprawling nation-
wide class consisting of all current and former female
employees of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., estimated at the
time to comprise at least 1.5 million women. The
Ninth Circuit’s 6-5 en banc decision upholding the
certification order adopts standards that violate the
rights of both defendants and absent class members
and contradicts decisions of this Court and other cir-
cuits.

http://legaltimes.typepad.com/files/dukes--final-petition.pdf

but she'd know that if she actually read the papers