Skip to comments.Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart in huge sex bias lawsuit
Posted on 06/20/2011 9:13:07 AM PDT by rellimpank
The Supreme Court blocked the largest sexual-discrimination lawsuit ever from proceeding as a class action on Monday, handing a victory to Wal-Mart in a case that pitted the massive retailer against millions of its female employees.
The courts decision could have broad implications for workers seeking jointly to sue their employers.
The justices overturned an earlier U.S. appeals court ruling that gave class-action status to 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees, past and present, seeking billions of dollars in a suit accusing the retailer of paying women less and giving them fewer promotions at the company
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Woman are different than men. They aren’t as strong, have less endurance, aren’t as tall, and have different dispositions as well. They should be paid accordingly.
Guess we have a provocatuer poster on board.
The uglist women in the world - lose :-))
Yes, but we women are so much smarter than you men. ;)
...and all obummer needs is one more on the SCOTUS.
I think their 'rate of pay' should be based solely on their 'looks'.
obummer is not very good legally. He has help with the Liberal Justices, but often times he still fails.
[ Woman are different than men. They arent as strong, have less endurance, arent as tall, and have different dispositions as well. They should be paid accordingly. ]
AND they sue their employers for trumped nonsense.. and until now mostly get away with it..
Hiring women, unless you are forced to, can be almost suicidal... for an employer..
If the truth “provokes,” so be it.
"...handing a victory to Wal-Mart in a case that pitted the massive retailer against millions of its female employees."
That makes it sound like Mal-Mart and its female employes are in a true adversarial position, when actually it was Wal-Mart vs a clutch of jacobin lawyers, using 6 female shills as their instrument of class warfare.
Then explain to me why women will stand in line at the checkout register for 5 minutes with a cart of items to purchase, then watch as it is all rang up, and THEN when the clerk looks at them as says, "THAT WILL BE .....", they get this deer in the headlight look, and start fumbling through their purse searching for cash or credit cards, as if they had no idea they would be asked to pay at this point in their shopping outing.
Huh. What are the chances. < |:/~
In this March 29, 2011 file photo, the five plaintiffs in a case of women employees against Wal-Mart, from left, Stephanie Odle, of Norman, Okla., Betty Dukes, of Pittsburg, Calif., Deborah Gunter, of Palm Springs, Calif., Christine Kwapnoski, of Bay Point, Calif., and Edith Arena, of Duarte, Calif. pose for a photograph outside the Supreme Court in Washington.
How 'bout we look at this from --- I know it's a novel approach --- a free market perspective? And determine pay by the supply/demands conditions the labor market and the employees' profitability to the company?
Hmm, big boy?
Thank God for small favors.
You noticed that too?
Plaintiffs never make money in a class action lawsuit - only the plaintiffs lawyers make money. Let’s say they had won a 1.5 billion dollar lawsuit. Each of the 1.5 million plaintiffs would get $1,000 (less the legal fees of $333) or $667 per plaintiff. However, the law firm representing the plaintiff gets $500,000,000.
Or we could just leave it the way it is now, where pay is based on LOOKS and who you will have sex with.
It’s done purposely to hold you up and it seems to be working!
How the heck would I know how to explain individual instances of stupid men or women?
LOL! yes, I often wonder where they think they are.
Unless they have some extraordinary resume that isn't being considered, I really wouldn't want them as a top rep.
Men will NEVER ask for directions. Always amusing...
The Communist Judges vs. The American Judges.
Celebrate a just SCOTUS decision - slap a lawyer today!
“Woman are different than men. They arent as strong, have less endurance, arent as tall, and have different dispositions as well. They should be paid accordingly.”
Lawrence? Dr. Lawrence Summers? Is that you?
Silly, everyone knows women should be paid for their 1) looks, 2) willingness to sit there and look pretty, and 3) ability to cook. Bonuses are paid for child bearing ability but thats usually only applicable after a huge investment in training. Willingness to get drinks and/or snacks during the game are also considerations.
Pa-THET-ic. And I don't mean the greeters.
I worked at a Walmart warehouse for 12 years alongside women. They were expected to work at the same rate as me and they did, day in and day out. Some were pretty nice looking. I could out lift almost all of them if I needed to but they certainly pulled their weight.
Women also have better manual dexterity than men, and as a result were better at some jobs and could wipe the floor with me if they chose. I certainly wouldn’t want to be paid less due to their superior abilities.
Elinor Smeal, is that you?
Indeed, suing Wal-Mart is now a cottage industry, with some 5,000 lawsuits filed against the company each year. http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/09/wal-mart-lawsuits-cx_tvr_1109walmart.html?partner=weekly_newsletter A Zogby Poll...found that 85% of frequent Wal-Mart shoppers pulled the lever for President Bush in 2004, and that 88% of people who never shop there voted for John Kerry.
By LIZ PEEK | August 24, 2006
“What is behind all the furor, and what exactly are Democratic candidates hoping to gain by jumping on the anti-Wal-Mart bandwagon? It’s about unions, or the lack thereof, in Wal-Mart’s employee ranks. A review of the major anti-Wal-Mart organizations campaigning against the company reveals that they are all union-funded”.
That's an important point!
With the 5 to 4 decision, Walmart was one Justice away from having to increase their prices to pay off a multi-billion dollar suit. Walmart stock would have declined hurting private retirement accounts.
We were one Justice away from a massive redistribution of wealth.
The Supreme Court alone is reason enough to prevent the election of any future Marxist (Dimocrat) presidents.
And, we are one SCOTUS Justice away from them scoring some huge victories.
Emotionally handicapped? Should sue under the disabilities act.
"Christine Kwapnoski, a 46-year-old single mother of two."
No info on the rest of them. Those are just the two I searched.
The main part of the ruling was 9-0. Everyone agreed the class certified by the 9th Circuit could not be maintained. The four dissenters would have sent the case back to give the plaintiffs a shot at trying to certify a narrower class, under a tougher standard.
No. Which may explain why they are getting paid and promoted less. Isn't that what they are suing about?
It's either that, or they are using the GENDER excuse to cover for the possibility that they are of the more 'sedate' type who usually show this in their body fat percentage. The men who didn't get paid better/promoted were not approached by this lawsuit happy team. Wonder if it would turn out that there was a statistical correlation between the 'plump' and the 'skinny', and not between the sexes???
I think it's less likely BMI, and more likely WEI (Whining, Entitlement Attitude).
Just a guess, of course.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.