Skip to comments.Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case
Posted on 06/20/2011 8:05:12 AM PDT by Hoodat
WASHINGTON The Supreme Court has ruled for Wal-Mart in its fight to block a massive sex discrimination lawsuit on behalf of women who work there.
The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. The lawsuit could have involved up to 1.6 million women, with Wal-Mart facing potentially billions of dollars in damages.
Now, the handful of women who brought the lawsuit may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Good news for a change, it also means the lawyers will have to work harder for less money.
That has to be good in anybody’s book.
I can’t believe that liberal wise Latina justices, and liberal ACLU attorneys on the Court voted for a conservative ruling. I am amazed that this was a 9-0 decision.
Can even liberal justices have moments of clarity, moments when they actually apply the law to the case at hand, rather than trying to use the courts to fix every alleged problem of society?????
The 9th Circuit needs to be eliminated. They’re reversed to much they just waste time and money. If they are not going to eliminate them, then shrink their jusisdiction to the confines of the San Francisco city limits.
Too bad they can’t start firing.
Don’t question miracles.
Just accept them...................
I don’t believe it’s a ‘duplicate’ unless the source is the same. Same story, but different source seems to be okay............
This was an implausibly large class, claiming to embrace all women who work at Wal-Mart from the greeters up to the corporate managers. Not only would the case be daunting to prove, it would open up a countersuit from all the men.
Especially since this is a “MSM” source rather than al-Jazeera. Part of the function of FR is to comment upon the commentators.
Yes, I understand that. But I simply wouldn't have begun this thread if I had seen the other one. I did a search for the word 'Supreme' in the title before posting. So it must have taken me more than 4 minutes to dot all the 'i's and cross all the 't's.
These are different stories from different sources about the same issue so we will leave both of them up.
Thanks for alerting us of the situation.