The right wing controlled US Supreme Court is on a roll today

[sportage]

Killing off the women of walmart's class action

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/20/supreme-court-wal-mart-ruling_n_880348.html

If you visit a walmart today... be prepared to DUCK and FAST!
If you hear shots, gunfire, just run. Don't think about it, just RUN!

 

[brandonb]

hahah. Are you serious?

 

[sportage]

PS.. For all the women of walmart that voted Bush, and Im sure there are many, ENJOY!
See... voting stupid DOES have its repercussions after all...
Who would-a thought?

 

[Axon]

I'm a plaintiff's attorney and as liberal as it gets when it comes to these kinds of things. This case wasn't bumped because big mean Wal Mart beat up on the little guy. It was bumped because it was filed as a class action and yet it wasn't a class action suit at all. It was more akin to a mass tort, save it involved employment discrimination. Which is why all the justices agreed it cannot proceed in its current form.

A class-action requires all the plaintiffs to be injured in the same manner by the same defendant. WM was successful in its argument suggesting that an assistant manager at WM is different than a cashier as Sam's Club. It's a point of legality and certainly not of equity, but that's the breaks. These women can still bring an individual suit.

 

[MotF Bane]

Not sure if serious.

 

[blackangst1]

I'm a plaintiff's attorney and as liberal as it gets when it comes to these kinds of things. This case wasn't bumped because big mean Wal Mart beat up on the little guy. It was bumped because it was filed as a class action and yet it wasn't a class action suit at all. It was more akin to a mass tort, save it involved employment discrimination. Which is why all the justices agreed it cannot proceed in its current form.

A class-action requires all the plaintiffs to be injured in the same manner by the same defendant. WM was successful in its argument suggesting that an assistant manager at WM is different than a cashier as Sam's Club. It's a point of legality and certainly not of equity, but that's the breaks. These women can still bring an individual suit.

Yah reading the article it appears thats correct. "Cant be filed in its current form" was the reason.

 

[Texashiker]

The right wing controlled US Supreme Court is on a roll today

The suit was rather vague, 1.5 million disgruntled employees would be rather difficult to defend against.

Why not form groups of say 10,000 women, and then sue wal-mart 150 times?

 

[JockoJohnson]

Not sure if serious.

Look at who posted this and then you will have the answer to your question.

 

[First]

When you actually read it, it seems to make plenty of sense. 404 outrage not found.

 

[nageov3t]

god damn the right wing controlled US of KKK-A Supreme Court... in their unanimous decision

 

[sportage]

Just to be on the safe side, buy an extra red rose for your walmart checkout lady today.
Just to be on the safe side...
And regardless of the facts, it wouldn't hurt to use the term "dam supreme court" often in any dialog you might have with her.

 

[Craig234]

I'm a plaintiff's attorney and as liberal as it gets when it comes to these kinds of things. This case wasn't bumped because big mean Wal Mart beat up on the little guy. It was bumped because it was filed as a class action and yet it wasn't a class action suit at all. It was more akin to a mass tort, save it involved employment discrimination. Which is why all the justices agreed it cannot proceed in its current form.

A class-action requires all the plaintiffs to be injured in the same manner by the same defendant. WM was successful in its argument suggesting that an assistant manager at WM is different than a cashier as Sam's Club. It's a point of legality and certainly not of equity, but that's the breaks. These women can still bring an individual suit.

Thanks for that explanation. It suggests that the attorneys did something wrong in how they proceeded on the case, with a unanimous verdict it should not proceed.

However, once again, the radical 4 on the right plus Kennedy have voted against the better 4 justices on something - so something isn't all that simple:

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. But they split 5-4 along ideological lines over whether the plaintiffs should in essence get another chance to make their case.

The 4 better justices appear to have seen some merit to the chance to have this proceed as a larger case.

So, it'd be good to get a better understanding of what the 5-4 issue was.

 

[JockoJohnson]

There is no doubt that women on average are making less than their male counterparts. That needs to be fixed. But the ENTIRE Supreme Court (not just the right wing side) made the correct decision.

You have to be an utter retard to think this was a good case to start with. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Next time, the lawyers should put a better case together as Craig has suggested.

 

[ichy]

Class action lawsuits benefit nobody except for trial lawyers.

 

[MotF Bane]

Thanks for that explanation. It suggests that the attorneys did something wrong in how they proceeded on the case, with a unanimous verdict it should not proceed.

However, once again, the radical 4 on the right plus Kennedy have voted against the better 4 justices on something - so something isn't all that simple:



The 4 better justices appear to have seen some merit to the chance to have this proceed as a larger case.

So, it'd be good to get a better understanding of what the 5-4 issue was.

Even in a clear procedural decision, you mock the correct five, and fellate those opposed, just because of the nine's overall political leanings. A blind partisan shill.

 

[waggy]

actually if people read about this case its no suprise at how it came down. the lawsuit was very very vague. not to mention it had many contradictions in it. all of wich would have made it damn well impossible to defend.

 

[sportage]

Well this is what happens when you hire a lawyer from the GREAT VALUE legal assistance isle.

 

[blackangst1]

Even in a clear procedural decision, you mock the correct five, and fellate those opposed, just because of the nine's overall political leanings. A blind partisan shill.

Did you expect anything less?

 

[Axon]

It seems intuitive that all female greeters who work at wal-mart and feel like they were denied promotions or pay raises based on their gender could bring a suit of this. To that end, so could assistant managers who were denied promotion to manager or regional manager. Etc.

What you can't do is clump all these different kinds of workers together. Wal-Mart isn't off the hook on this. The suggestion that class actions are borked or whatever simply isn't accurate.

 

[Skitzer]

Just to be on the safe side, buy an extra red rose for your walmart checkout lady today.
Just to be on the safe side...
And regardless of the facts, it wouldn't hurt to use the term "dam supreme court" often in any dialog you might have with her.

Did you read your own article?

 

[Genx87]

9-0 decision it cant move forward in its current form. Everybody is a right winger.

 

[xj0hnx]

What is really bringing the goods in this thread is that even though the OP has been completely owned by his own partisan hackery, he is still going on as if he was ever right about anything, simply hilarious.

 

[Lemon law]

Two things to say.

1. Another 5-4 decision, once we get rid of one of the rat fink right winger at SCOTUS, SCOTUS will likely spend close to a decade reversing itself on various rulings.

2. Even if a vastly reduced class of WAL-Mart employees wins at SCOTUS, its still going to set case law making subsequent even larger cases easier to win.

 

[xj0hnx]

Two things to say.

1. Another 5-4 decision, once we get rid of one of the rat fink right winger at SCOTUS, SCOTUS will likely spend close to a decade reversing itself on various rulings.

2. Even if a vastly reduced class of WAL-Mart employees wins at SCOTUS, its still going to set case law making subsequent even larger cases easier to win.

Another partisan hack moron that posted before he read the article, or even the post in this very thread.

 

[PokerGuy]

The usual band of idiots (4 of them to be exact) was on the wrong side, the other 5 saw the obvious logical problem with lumping 1.5 million separate plaintiffs with a wide variety of complaints and situations into one lawsuit. It would have been impossible for walmart to defend itself.

The correct answer is for a different suit to be filed for each type of claim against walmart. The plaintiffs can win each one of those cases, but logically they should not be lumped together.

Side note: as usual, the 9th circuit band of idiots once again gets reversed. What a joke that court is.