There has been a lot of discussion here recently about whether or not the Republican Party is in bed with Big Business. Well, today folks, a case goes before the USSC that will go a long way toward giving some indication of whether or not that actually is the case.
Walmart, that Darling of the Right, has been sued in a class action suit alleging (I know you are going to find this hard to believe) employment discrimination against female employees. That's right - I'm not kidding.
The issue before The Supremes has to do with the size of the class. Over two million women are estimated to comprise the class requesting certification. The class was certified by a federal court. Walmart appealed. A federal appellate court (who else? the 9th Circuit) upheld the certification. The issue is now before The Supremes.
The decision will have a huge impact on Walmart and upon Big Business litigation in general. If the certification is struck down, it will be a huge blow to individual workers and a big boost to Big Business in general, because it will limit the size of class action suits that can be brought against employer corporations.
So, folks - today, we find out what kind of a Supreme Court we have here. I'm betting the certification gets struck down. If it does, I'm back on here Big Time with all kinds of I told ya so's. If not, I'm back on here saying good on ya, Supremes - I misjudged you.
Let's keep an eye on this bad boy.
Did you pay any attention to the orals today?
But when the female employees’ lawyer, Joseph M. Sellers of Washington, started his side of the argument, it did not take long for Justice Kennedy to say that “it’s not clear to me: what is the unlawful policy that Wal-Mart has adopted, under your theory of the case.” Store managers, the attorney replied, have been given “unchecked discretion,” and they use it to discriminate.
But, Kennedy said, “It’s hard for me to see…Your complaint faces in two directions. Number one, you said this is a culture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that’s going on. 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.”
Sellers chose in reply to dwell on the breadth of the store managers’ discretion, saying “There’s no guidance whatsoever about how to make those decisions.” The discretion, he added, is then used within “a very strong corporate culture” that leads managers to be “informed by the values the company provides.” The response itself seemed contradictory: if there was “no guidance whatsoever,” how were the managers led to apply company “values”?
Argument recap: A fatal flaw detected? : SCOTUSblog
I know that the Queen told Alice that she sometimes believed in six impossible things before breakfast, but this would boggle even her mind.
Wal-Mart gave its managers total discretion in promoting whoever they wanted to, and they used that discretion to discriminate as individuals. That lack of direction amounts to a directive to discriminate?
Sorry, but if the court certifies this as a class that only proves they like lawyers. If, however, they refuse to certify it, it at least proves they have some common sense. I honestly don't understand why this even got this far, other than that it started in the 9th.
Tell me, why would you use one really bad case as a the deciding factor on if this court is pro business? Why not use all the cases they decided against business?
