If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   So, the lesson here is that if you're going to discriminate against women, make sure you do it to enough of them that the Supreme Court throws out the class action suit against you for getting too large   (news.blogs.cnn.com) divider line 199
    More: News  
•       •       •

14007 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jun 2011 at 11:55 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



199 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-20 11:56:45 AM
That's what you get for overstepping, womens.

Back to the kitchens with ya, and get to sexing.
 
2011-06-20 11:57:21 AM
I guess I will have to double-secret boycott Wal-Fart since I don't shop there anyway.
 
2011-06-20 11:58:02 AM
Let's be honest here, this Supreme Court would find in favor of Wal-Mart if they dropped a nuclear bomb on NYC.
 
2011-06-20 11:58:28 AM
The conservative wing of SCOTUS voted in favor of a major corporation again. gee...how shocking.
 
2011-06-20 11:58:29 AM
Too big to flail?
 
2011-06-20 11:59:02 AM
Or you could not try to take arbitration, intended to be quick and inexpensive, and make it so large scale that it fails at being both quick and inexpensive.
 
2011-06-20 11:59:53 AM
No, the lesson here is that if you're going to file a class-action lawsuit, make sure you do it with plaintiffs whose cases are similar in nature and you're not just pulling names out of the phone book to add to the list.
 
2011-06-20 11:59:55 AM
The key wasn't just that it was too large, it was also that Wal-Mart discriminated in so many various ways. So if you are going to discriminate against many women, make sure to find many different ways. Grab one's ass, compliment another's tits, tell a third to get you a sammich, you know, mix it up.
 
2011-06-20 12:00:07 PM

jayhawk88: Let's be honest here, this Supreme Court would find in favor of Wal-Mart if they dropped a nuclear bomb on NYC.


nah, they'd totally find wal-mart at least $400 for violating EPA regs or something.
 
2011-06-20 12:00:09 PM
t1.gstatic.com
 
2011-06-20 12:00:09 PM
I heard the legal briefs in this case were so cumbersome, they had to wheel them into the courthouse on an electric scooter.
 
2011-06-20 12:00:16 PM
make me a farking sammich!!
 
2011-06-20 12:00:28 PM
As a woman I think....

Oh yeah, women don't think. Nevermind.
 
2011-06-20 12:00:39 PM
I think their case would have been better had they pared it down a little bit. It just got so huge and overarching that the complaint against Walmart became diluted
 
2011-06-20 12:01:19 PM
Maybe it was the right thing to do. Class action lawsuits are cookie cutter justice which might work reasonably well for defective products. For this, though, it seems poorly placed.

I like the idea that all of the former plaintiffs start individual cases against Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart won't, though. It will be much more expensive this way.
 
2011-06-20 12:02:02 PM

lennavan: The key wasn't just that it was too large, it was also that Wal-Mart discriminated in so many various ways. So if you are going to discriminate against many women, make sure to find many different ways. Grab one's ass, compliment another's tits, tell a third to get you a sammich, you know, mix it up.


That's how I do things. sexual harrasment, womans only right.

jk. jk. I gots jokes.
 
2011-06-20 12:02:10 PM

lennavan: The key wasn't just that it was too large, it was also that Wal-Mart discriminated in so many various ways. So if you are going to discriminate against many women, make sure to find many different ways. Grab one's ass, compliment another's tits, tell a third to get you a sammich, you know, mix it up.


And if you're considered hot, you can get away with it. Maybe get called charming as well!

/sounds not hot
 
2011-06-20 12:02:32 PM
I guess it's pointless to try suing after finding that pube on my Sam*s Choice cola can.
 
2011-06-20 12:02:58 PM
Is the Obvious tag on vacation? I have about as much faith in the SCOTUS than any other branch of government to ever do anything contrary to the interests of a corporation. All those in power want to do is distract the rest of us with non-issues while they and/or their rich buddies take our money and run.
 
2011-06-20 12:03:34 PM
I voted my way in to a brand new house!

Opps. I said the loud part quietly and the quiet part loudly.

/close?
 
2011-06-20 12:03:41 PM
Keep sucking that corperate dick SCOTUS.
 
2011-06-20 12:04:01 PM
I know most won't, but if they could have 1.6 million little cases, that would be quite awesome. Most though probably don't have the money to fight big Walmart.
 
2011-06-20 12:04:30 PM
Unanimous. Assholes.

Fed-Ex was designed to run every package it processed through one airport. Sometimes big is all you can be.

We have a new doctrine in business jurisprudence. The Butz Doctrine. "Get big or get sued."
 
2011-06-20 12:04:47 PM
So, do I need to ask how the vote went?
 
2011-06-20 12:05:03 PM
Wouldn't it have made more sense to just make a ruling, and make keep the punitive damages at a reasonable amount, such that it would be diluted among the many plaintiffs? The number of complainants has nothing to do with whether or not Walmart violated the law. This is horseshiat.
 
2011-06-20 12:05:43 PM

Taylor Crash: As a woman I think....

Oh yeah, women don't think. Nevermind.


damned farking right
 
2011-06-20 12:06:15 PM
Too big to female?

/I've got nothing
 
2011-06-20 12:06:28 PM

bv2112: Wouldn't it have made more sense to just make a ruling, and make keep the punitive damages at a reasonable amount, such that it would be diluted among the many plaintiffs? The number of complainants has nothing to do with whether or not Walmart violated the law. This is horseshiat.


Seriously though, you should read the article. I was pretty poutraged until I did too.
 
2011-06-20 12:07:04 PM

lennavan: Seriously though, you should read the article. I was pretty poutraged until I did too.


RTFA now...
 
2011-06-20 12:07:06 PM

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I guess I will have to double-secret boycott Wal-Fart since I don't shop there anyway.


Shh! You will be labled as elitist if you say such things!

/also doesn't shop at Wal-Mart
//4 years clean, doesn't miss a thing about it
 
2011-06-20 12:07:27 PM

Taylor Crash: As a woman I think....

Oh yeah, women don't think. Nevermind.


I'm pretty upset you even tried. I don't remember allowing that.
 
2011-06-20 12:07:30 PM
Things have gotten so bad..

How bad is it?

The sick tag died.
 
2011-06-20 12:08:14 PM

Weaver95: The conservative wing of SCOTUS voted in favor of a major corporation again. gee...how shocking.


It's a decision about the class-action status, not about the merits of the case. There's nothing to stop those individuals from suing for discrimination or for a new class-action lawsuit to be filed, but the attorneys might need to take five minutes to do their jobs rather than hope for a quick cash-in with an "if you can't win by reason, go for volume" approach.
 
2011-06-20 12:08:17 PM
Class action lawsuits have nothing to do with employers vs employees and everything to do with trial lawyers vs everyone else in America. Trial lawyers are parasites who drive up the cost of doing business for everyone. Businesses compensate for it on their bottom line by raising prices and consumers are ultimately the ones who pay for it.
 
2011-06-20 12:09:44 PM
On the other hand, SCOTUS defended the ruling that fathers don't count as much as mothers for the purposes of immigration.
 
2011-06-20 12:10:06 PM

TheManofPA: I know most won't, but if they could have 1.6 million little cases, that would be quite awesome. Most though probably don't have the money to fight big Walmart.


No, they don't have the money. Or at least, I don't.

I worked at a Wal-Mart for less than four months in high school (first job) and they still owe me overtime pay, a couple thousand bucks. It wouldn't be worth it to go after them. If I came into some money, I'd do it based on principle, but that's not going to happen.
 
2011-06-20 12:10:48 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Weaver95: The conservative wing of SCOTUS voted in favor of a major corporation again. gee...how shocking.

It's a decision about the class-action status, not about the merits of the case. There's nothing to stop those individuals from suing for discrimination or for a new class-action lawsuit to be filed, but the attorneys might need to take five minutes to do their jobs rather than hope for a quick cash-in with an "if you can't win by reason, go for volume" approach.


...and then SCOTUS will come up with ANOTHER reason to turf the case while not addressing the actual issues involved. All perfectly legal of course, and quite proper too I am sure.

But in the end, it's still the big guys screwing over the little guys and the courts helping 'em out.
 
2011-06-20 12:10:53 PM
At least this way, the plaintiffs who were discriminated against will get some of the settlement money rather than one lawyer getting billions and everyone else getting $5.36.
 
2011-06-20 12:10:55 PM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: Weaver95: The conservative wing of SCOTUS voted in favor of a major corporation again. gee...how shocking.

It's a decision about the class-action status, not about the merits of the case. There's nothing to stop those individuals from suing for discrimination or for a new class-action lawsuit to be filed, but the attorneys might need to take five minutes to do their jobs rather than hope for a quick cash-in with an "if you can't win by reason, go for volume" approach.


True. And all 9 justices agreed this was an improper class action. Not much to see here.
 
2011-06-20 12:11:02 PM

Weaver95: The conservative wing of SCOTUS voted in favor of a major corporation again. gee...how shocking.


That was my first thought, too, but the decision was unanimous. Another ruling on the case was split 5-4, but the decision to toss it out was 9-0.
 
2011-06-20 12:11:14 PM
So if you're a fat woman now would be a good time to work for Wal-mart because you will be Store Manager in 5 years making a few hundred thousand a year. If there's one thing I learned about my time with them is that they are extremely paranoid about being sued. More so about breaking labor laws like they've been notoriously sued for in decades past to the point they're obessive.
 
2011-06-20 12:11:52 PM

Burr: The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: I guess I will have to double-secret boycott Wal-Fart since I don't shop there anyway.

Shh! You will be labled as elitist if you say such things!

/also doesn't shop at Wal-Mart
//4 years clean, doesn't miss a thing about it


I'm 5 years clean. Always preferred Target and before that Kmart.
 
2011-06-20 12:11:54 PM
/still ain't shopping there, several good reasons
 
2011-06-20 12:12:16 PM
Gee, that's a shocker.

/best SC money can buy
 
2011-06-20 12:12:35 PM

lennavan: Seriously though, you should read the article. I was pretty poutraged until I did too.


Yeah, as dickish as Walmart can be, and as sure I am that they did do something wrong to many of the plaintiffs, I find it hard to believe that hundreds of thousands of women were discriminated against; and if so, discriminated in the same manner. If it had been an actual company policy that was discriminatory in nature, a class-action suit would be legitimate even with such a high number of people in the plaintiff's side, but that does not seem to be the case. Kind of absurd that this even made it to the Supreme Court.
 
2011-06-20 12:12:40 PM
Actually, the Justices didn't do WallyWorld any favors here. When a class action suit is brought, the potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out of the class. If they do not do so by the deadline, they are permanently members of the class, are bound by the court's ruling and may not sue the defendant for any action covered by the suit. If they opt out, they may sue individually. Most people don't opt out.

Now, since the SCOTUS rejected the class action suit because of the huge size of the class, each and every member of the class may sue WallyWorld. The legal costs could break them.
 
2011-06-20 12:14:03 PM
The award would have just ended up being millions of pairs of medium stirrup stretch pants in neon colors anyway.
 
2011-06-20 12:14:07 PM

JackieRabbit: Actually, the Justices didn't do WallyWorld any favors here. When a class action suit is brought, the potential members of the class have to be notified and given the opportunity to opt out of the class. If they do not do so by the deadline, they are permanently members of the class, are bound by the court's ruling and may not sue the defendant for any action covered by the suit. If they opt out, they may sue individually. Most people don't opt out.

Now, since the SCOTUS rejected the class action suit because of the huge size of the class, each and every member of the class may sue WallyWorld. The legal costs could break them.


Or, because Walmart has unending pockets, they will simply win by virtue of having the more expensive attorneys. Money buys justice.
 
2011-06-20 12:16:12 PM
I love how an op-ed says the decision was "unanimous" while reporting at the same time that it was 5-4.

what a joke.
 
2011-06-20 12:16:18 PM

elev8meL8r: I heard the legal briefs in this case were so cumbersome, they had to wheel them into the courthouse on an electric scooter.


HA! Zzziing!!
 
Displayed 50 of 199 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report