Supreme Court rules in favor of Walmart in Sex-Bias Case.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/20/us-walmart-lawsuit-idUSTRE75J3P120110620

"The high court accepted Wal-Mart's main argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit.

The Supreme Court only decided whether the 10-year-old lawsuit can proceed to trial as a group, not the merits of the sex-discrimination allegations at the heart of the case.

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer and the largest private U.S. employer, has denied the allegations and said it has operated under a policy barring discrimination.

The ruling in the biggest business case of the high court's 2010-11 term could affect other class-action lawsuits against the tobacco industry and Costco Wholesale Corp. It also was the court's most important job-discrimination dispute in more than a decade.

Justice Antonin Scalia concluded for the court majority that the class was not properly certified.

He said there must be significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. "That is entirely absent here," he said, noting that Wal-Mart's official corporate policies forbid sex discrimination."

Sooo, I suppose sexual discrimination is still okay in practice, so long as the company handbook denounces it in theory. Okey dokey then. At the very least, Walmart's guilty of extreme negligence in enforcing its policies, and tackling the issue by way of individual cases with individual people does little to address that.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

"Yeeee-hah! Score one for the bad guys!"

Let's see the bright side: At least the guys at the bottom of the women's chain of command will be punished for the discrimination they did against corporate policy.

*ahem*

edited 20th Jun '11 8:16:02 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

That is an interesting argument though.

the pronoun system in Cherokee is just better. Need Scion GM.

Yeah, as much as this rankles, the first paragraph is the crux here. The court decided that the group of claimants were not similar enough to form a proper class-action group, not that Wal-Mart was not engaging in sexual discrimination, discrimination is OK, or anything like that.

It was a pure procedural ruling, like throwing out a case due to lack of evidence or mishandling rather than declaring the defendant innocent.

Apparently I am adorable, but my GF is my #1 Groupie. (Avatar by Dreki-K)

Does anyone know how the votes were split - if at all?

From another source:

"A 5-4 vote determined that the suit could not go forward because the plaintiffs were unable to show that Wal-Mart had a common, chain-wide policy of discriminating against women."

Ironically, this is one area where I'm feeling more 'feminist' than Jeysie. The sheer numbers involved make it appear to be a systemic issue, and systemic issues should be addressed in a systemic context, not a micro one.

Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.

Well if the one thing they all had in common was being discriminated against you think that would be enough.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

Not necessarily, as there might not be a common pattern. Lots of people get robbed every day, but there's no nexus of responsibility.

There could still be lesser class actions though, if they were established together.

Yeah. I would need more info before I can declare sexism. I find it strange that all the judges agreed on one part, but the liberal judges disagreed on the second part. I find it strange cause I don't know what either part was. I am now pretending the second part involved cats and dogs.

Please.

I think the real question is if Walmart (or any other large corporation) has an obligation to police potential discrimination in their system. If they do have such an obligation, then it's much easier to see how such a class-action lawsuit has merit, and vice versa. (Actually that would be the crux of the lawsuit. Is Walmart acting in a reasonable fashion in order to prevent wage discrimination?)

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

Looking at a few other pages, the part they all agreed on was that you couldn't get compensatory relief out of a provision for injunctions. Injunctions are basically orders to stop doing X, compensation is payment for doing X.

The part they disagreed on was the result of Wal-Mart granting relative autonomy to supervisors.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Bad though Walmart is, it's not like this is an unjust decision.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.