Walmart 'sexism' case before US Supreme Court
 

The US Supreme Court is set to begin hearing evidence on whether the largest sex discrimination lawsuit in American history should go ahead.

A group of women is suing the world's biggest retailer, Walmart, claiming they were held back because of their gender.

They want to bring a class action suit on behalf of more than a million women.

Walmart denies the allegations, saying it has a long history of promoting women and paying them well. Christine Kwapnowski, one of six women named as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, claims she was passed over for pay and promotion in favour of male colleagues.

"I asked what I needed to do to get promoted and my manager said I should 'doll up and blow the cobwebs off my make-up'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-12888425

Note: 29 March 2011 Last updated at 12:40 GMT

A class action sexual discrimination case? Wait, what?

I don't know if that's interesting... or just stupid. I'm leaning towards stupid.

It would have been nice if the article (or imbedded "analysis" segment) went into the details of why they wanted to go this route and Wal-Mart's argument against class certification. I guess the BBC sucks as bad as our news over here.

You know the press always wants to make money on their news

I'm not sure how you could certify a class when there's 1.5 million different situations going on, with different managers, stores, locations, etc. If there was systemic discrimination, to what degree was each individual discriminated against? Lump them all together and you lose that distinction. And how would you split any judgement? Do you say that each plaintiff was discriminated against equally? I find that hard to believe.

While the statistics would suggest that there's something going on, to lump 1.5 million plaintiffs together sounds more like a lawyer wanting a fatter payday than anything else. If I were a lawyer, I'd rather represent 1.5 million plaintiffs with a potential judgement in the billions rather than a handful of individual cases with the potential for millions.

What are these women complaining about? I didn't see any sexism on Walmart. Last time I was in there I saw a whole bunch of cooking utensils, vacuum cleaners, fuzzy pink slippers, and plenty of maternity clothes. What else do they want?

No, class-actions aren't really about that, the way I understand it. From what little has been mentioned of them in school, the purpose of a class-action suit (or more accurately, the reason we allow them) is to allow large groups of people who couldn't engage in a legal fight as individuals to pool their case (and resources) together to take on well-represented interests that are doing general harm.

In this case I suspect you are correct. Actually, there are plenty of class-action suits that have taken place where the plaintiffs weren't even consulted. One such suit involved General Mills, which had included a non-approved ingredient or dye or something in their cereals. It wasn't harmful, but some attorneys took the case and ended up with a settlement of millions of dollars, while the plaintifss themselves received coupons for free boxes of cereal.

In this instance specifically, I would venture that the general nature of the charges is very telling and the span of time they cover, is very telling. Imo, the lawyers are probably just trying to get enough witnesses to come forward and say anything to get the case going on long enough to force Wal-Mart to settle rather than keep paying legal fees and risk bad press. However, the few women who came forward didn't have enough evidence on their own. Not saying that's true, just my initial impression.

That's odd, my boss asked me to do the same thing.:hmmm:


:har:

Class Actions aren't intended as a solution to help people without resources sue. They are meant in cases where the injury per individual is too small to sue over to consolidate their claims so that having a lawsuit makes sense.

And mookie was absolutely right in pointing out the problems. From the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

And if I may make an assumption that this is proceeding under FRCP 23(b)(3) (which is a safe bet):


"1.5 million different situations going on, with different managers, stores, locations, etc." is what we call "different questions of fact."

Molon,

Thanks for going to the direct source on this. :salute:

Unanimous, suckers!

Apparently the Court thought it was stupid too.

EDIT: apparently there was an ideological split on at least one of the main issues, as Ginsburg is being quoted as saying there was enough to tie the cases together. So maybe not so unanimous.

Stats are meaningless, though. Woman make less in general because they work less (take more sick leave, etc). You can argue that it's unfair that women get stuck staying home when the kids are sick, etc, more, or have to take more maternity time, but it's simple reality. I don;t think that otherwise identical employees get different pay based on sex in the US, and bet if you could actually show that all the employees were IDENTICAL in work habits/attendance, there would be zero pay difference.

My wife, for example, makes less than her partners, and works the same amount. Why? Women prefer to see a woman doc. So she gets stuck with talkative, women patients. Guy appointments are FAR shorter. If she saw more guys, she'd make more money. It;s not a nefarious plot to underpay her, it's just the situation.

Might want to get some resumes out. :03:

Good thing I did my shopping at WalMart before they "Roll Up" the prices.

:oops: Oops ! Wait... that's K-Mart. :D
















'

Why doesn't that suprise me. :o...:haha:

Molon Labe, you are my kind of poster. Thanks for taking the time to pull the federal rules instead of just copying what some journalist choose to write.