0.000375%

[jillian]

so first we had too big to fail, now we have too big to be sued according to the rightwingnut?

lol.. first it was "it is a miniscule percentage"... now it's oh... it can hurt wal-mart financiall?

and?

it's SUPPOSED to hurt wal-mart financially or why would they change their ILLEGAL behavior?

 

[boedicca]

Who said too big to be sued?

Learn to read for comprehension.

If the six women were truly discriminated against, then let them sue on their own behalf and seek proper damanges. The only reason for a class action lawsuit is to enrich the lawyers.

And here is the more realistic financial scenario:

And then, of course, there is the issue of attorneys' fees. The lawyers who brought the case stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps more, while each class member will receive a small amount. Consider, for example, a settlement of $2 billion. This is a staggering sum, but, given that Wal-Mart's exposure exceeds $500 billion, a $2 billion settlement would be less than one-half of 1% of the amount sought. Each class member would, on average, receive less than $1,200.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113659795209840464.html?mod=opinion&ojcontent=otep

 

[Ravi]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

 

[jillian]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

 

[boedicca]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

Yes. If a court decides to grant class action status, you are part of the fodder used by attorneys increase the claim.

You do have the option of "opting out" if you want to go through the effort. The system should be Opt In instead.

 

[Ravi]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

Odd, then why did dicca say:

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

I'll answer my own question. She hates trial lawyers so much that she will lie to keep a corporation from being sued. Or, she hates women so much that she will lie to keep a corporation from being sued for not following the law. Or she works and/or owns stock in Walmart. Or she thinks corporations should never be questioned.

 

[boedicca]

Uh. A court can decide that there is a class action group. An individual has to make a concerted effort to OPT OUT.

That's force. Why should a person have to take action to be excluded from something in which she did not want to participate in the first place?

I doubt you to grok this as you think ObamaCare is a great idea.

 

[jillian]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

Odd, then why did dicca say:

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

I'll answer my own question. She hates trial lawyers so much that she will lie to keep a corporation from being sued. Or, she hates women so much that she will lie to keep a corporation from being sued for not following the law. Or she works and/or owns stock in Walmart. Or she thinks corporations should never be questioned.

all of the above?

and just to show she continues to lie...

each potential member of the class is sent a document with the case caption, a decription of the claim and of the certified class. that document has a piece of paper that says something to the effect of "i do not wish to particupate in the class action" or "I wish to opt out of the class" (i forget the exact phrase). postage for this document is paid by the attorneys for the class ... person who wishes to opt out checks the box in question and mails back the postage paid paper.

and just to talk about the "greedy" trial lawyer.. .

the trial lawyers will be paying all of the expenses of notice and everything else for a potential class of 1.5 million people. YOU DO NOT TAKE ON THAT TYPE OF EXPENSE IF YOU THNK YOUR CASE IS FRIVOLOUS.

 

[Ravi]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

Yes. If a court decides to grant class action status, you are part of the fodder used by attorneys increase the claim.

You do have the option of "opting out" if you want to go through the effort. The system should be Opt In instead.

Oh, right...the rightwingloon's never ending battle to not take personal responsibility.

Liberals ate my homework.

 

[xsited1]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

That's true for most cases, but it is my understanding that for this case it is not true:

One issue in the case is a technical one involving the rules that govern lawsuits in federal court. The trial judge certified the class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Classes certified under that provision are mandatory, meaning potential plaintiffs can’t opt out of the case or file their own suit.

Wal-Mart Gets Top U.S. Court Review in Sex-Bias Case - Bloomberg

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

For you to be agreeing with her, wouldn't she have had to actually SAY that?

 

[boedicca]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

That's true for most cases, but it is my understanding that for this case it is not true:

One issue in the case is a technical one involving the rules that govern lawsuits in federal court. The trial judge certified the class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Classes certified under that provision are mandatory, meaning potential plaintiffs can’t opt out of the case or file their own suit.

Wal-Mart Gets Top U.S. Court Review in Sex-Bias Case - Bloomberg

Excellent catch!

 

[jillian]

Can you be forced to join a class action lawsuit?

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

That's true for most cases, but it is my understanding that for this case it is not true:

One issue in the case is a technical one involving the rules that govern lawsuits in federal court. The trial judge certified the class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Classes certified under that provision are mandatory, meaning potential plaintiffs can’t opt out of the case or file their own suit.

Wal-Mart Gets Top U.S. Court Review in Sex-Bias Case - Bloomberg

under 23(b)(2) the court MAY direct appropriate service. It is up to the court, not the attorneys.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 23

 

[Trajan]

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.

we can take that as far as you like, 8-9 acorn outfits in different states all perform basically the same actions presented with the same choices....so they're all guilty or that is the HQ is guilty and should be censored etc.?

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.

aren't they deciding that right now? if the co. is systemically culpable of an all encompassing policy that puts the HQ in the hot seat?

 

[xsited1]

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

That's true for most cases, but it is my understanding that for this case it is not true:

One issue in the case is a technical one involving the rules that govern lawsuits in federal court. The trial judge certified the class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Classes certified under that provision are mandatory, meaning potential plaintiffs can’t opt out of the case or file their own suit.

Wal-Mart Gets Top U.S. Court Review in Sex-Bias Case - Bloomberg

under 23(b)(2) the court MAY direct appropriate service. It is up to the court, not the attorneys.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 23

Yep. That's why this case stuck in my mind and because Wal-Mart is an Arkansas company. It's too bad the trial judge wouldn't allow potential plaintiffs a way to opt-out. That seems unfair to me.

 

[boedicca]

no. all potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out.

That's true for most cases, but it is my understanding that for this case it is not true:

One issue in the case is a technical one involving the rules that govern lawsuits in federal court. The trial judge certified the class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Classes certified under that provision are mandatory, meaning potential plaintiffs can’t opt out of the case or file their own suit.

Wal-Mart Gets Top U.S. Court Review in Sex-Bias Case - Bloomberg

under 23(b)(2) the court MAY direct appropriate service. It is up to the court, not the attorneys.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 23

Ahahahahahaha!!!!!

And you think that judges and attorneys aren't cronies?

Oh, Puh-leeeze.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

When the lawfirms often get up to 75% of a multi billion dollar settlement and the rest must be divided over all the plaintiffs... who's really being remunerated?

Do the math. Erin Brockovich was the winner. Not the victims.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

They use dubious math, top that off with questionable interpretation of the results, and declare that Wal-Mart is discriminating because they have no formal, or informal, company wide policy requiring managers to promote based on statistics, skin color, and gender.

Then you, as a lawyer, decide that lawyers being able to make money and screw over their clients is more important than truth or justice.

Class actions might have started as a way to discourage bad behavior (a claim I am neither agreeing, or disagreeing, with) but they are now about intimidation and making lawyers rich. Dukes original claim was that she was discriminated against because she is black. For some reason, after consulting a lawyer, she suddenly decided that the problem was she is female, and that her skin color is totally irrelevant.

Wal-Mart, despite giving their managers complete discretion to promote whoever they want, is somehow responsible for widespread, organized, gender based discrimination. Certifying this would be a massive miscarriage of justice.

 

[martybegan]

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.

They use dubious math, top that off with questionable interpretation of the results, and declare that Wal-Mart is discriminating because they have no formal, or informal, company wide policy requiring managers to promote based on statistics, skin color, and gender.

Then you, as a lawyer, decide that lawyers being able to make money and screw over their clients is more important than truth or justice.

Class actions might have started as a way to discourage bad behavior (a claim I am neither agreeing, or disagreeing, with) but they are now about intimidation and making lawyers rich. Dukes original claim was that she was discriminated against because she is black. For some reason, after consulting a lawyer, she suddenly decided that the problem was she is female, and that her skin color is totally irrelevant.

Wal-Mart, despite giving their managers complete discretion to promote whoever they want, is somehow responsible for widespread, organized, gender based discrimination. Certifying this would be a massive miscarriage of justice.

The use of modeling alone should prevent this from becoming law in of itself. You then have a lawsuit based not on discrimination itself, but upon a models assumption of what should be the "ideal" situation of employment in a company, followed by comparison to actual data.

Discrimination such as this needs to be fought at the micro level, not macro scale as in a class action. You need to prove actual discrimination, not just a possibility of it.

 

[boedicca]

.0000375% is not statistically significant enough to do any data modeling.

Period.