The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Balta, beyond the "ZOMG! Scalia wrote the opinion, so I know little kittens will be murdered somewhere!" reaction, why is this decision wrong? Don't you think in this case, where you have 1.5 million women claiming discrimination (so, XX thousands of managers/supervisors making employment decisions), that they be required to actually show what discriminatory acts occurred and what damages they suffered, instead of relying on general statistics of a company employing millions and millions of people?

[StrangeSox]

instead of relying on general statistics of a company employing millions and millions of people?

 

I dunno, statistical samples of that large of a group to show systematic discrimination seems pretty appropriate. A thousand tiny, individual claims may not amount to much on their own, but lumped together, can show that Walmart is either actively discriminatory or does nothing to correct or prevent it.

[StrangeSox]

Based on the three recent class cases, it seems like Scalia doesn't believe that class-action should even exist.

[Jenksismyhero]

I dunno, statistical samples of that large of a group to show systematic discrimination seems pretty appropriate. A thousand tiny, individual claims may not amount to much on their own, but lumped together, can show that Walmart is either actively discriminatory or does nothing to correct or prevent it.

 

But by this logic any woman employed by Wal-mart is now a class member, even if she never applied for a promotion or raise, let alone actually being denied those things in favor of a male counterpart. That's Scalia's point - how can you really say there's commonality when you're talking about tens of thousands of business decisions that are independent from one another? You're basically using two criteria to define the class - being a female and employment with Wal-mart.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Yeah, they weren't split on that issue.

 

 

In this case, you're both completely incorrect. There were 2 parts of the decision, one part decided unanimously, and another part decided 5-4. The 9-0 agreement part of that decision was regarding whether back pay was an appropriate response under a certain part of the law usually used for injunctive relief.

 

The question of whether or not these plaintiffs had enough in common to qualify for class-action status was decided on the usual 5-4 lines.

 

lol (at myself)

[StrangeSox]

But by this logic any women employed by Wal-mart is now a class member, even if they never applied for a promotion or raise, let alone actually being denied those things in favor of a male counterpart. That's Scalia's point - how can you really say there's commonality when you're talking about tens of thousands of business decisions that are independent from one another? You're basically using two criteria to define the class - being a female and employment with Wal-mart.

 

Well that's why it's a very difficult issue. How does this get fairly judicated?

[Jenksismyhero]

Well that's why it's a very difficult issue. How does this get fairly judicated?

 

Individual suits. You can still use those statistics to bolster your case if you don't already have a strong one ("see jury! not only did she not get the promotion despite being overly qualified, but she's not the only one in the company...")

[StrangeSox]

Individual suits. You can still use those statistics to bolster your case if you don't already have a strong one ("see jury! not only did she not get the promotion despite being overly qualified, but she's not the only one in the company...")

 

Well that goes back to the argument we had before, most of those suits will never get filed because individually they're not that strong. You need the grand pattern of being a s***ty company to drive the case and to have it actually make an impact on Walmart, both financially and policy-wise.

 

eta: "I only got a .25 raise as cashier while the males routinely got .30" isn't a case worth suing over individually, but if you've got 100,000 cashiers with the same claim in a class suit...well...

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Well that goes back to the argument we had before, most of those suits will never get filed because individually they're not that strong. You need the grand pattern of being a s***ty company to drive the case and to have it actually make an impact on Walmart, both financially and policy-wise.

 

eta: "I only got a .25 raise as cashier while the males routinely got .30" isn't a case worth suing over individually, but if you've got 100,000 cashiers with the same claim in a class suit...well...

There you go.

 

In this case, Walmart was allowing a situation where women were consistenly not promoted or paid as well as men. While it may not have been an official company policy, the company got around this by allowing the decisions to be made at a level where that type of decision was going to be made.

 

There needs to be a legal redress here and it can't be "1.5 million individual cases".

[Jenksismyhero]

Well that goes back to the argument we had before, most of those suits will never get filed because individually they're not that strong. You need the grand pattern of being a s***ty company to drive the case and to have it actually make an impact on Walmart, both financially and policy-wise.

 

eta: "I only got a .25 raise as cashier while the males routinely got .30" isn't a case worth suing over individually, but if you've got 100,000 cashiers with the same claim in a class suit...well...

 

True, but I think discrimination is a different ballgame than charging (or overcharging) someone on a bill. There could be 25 reasons why you got .05 cents less per hour that has nothing to do with being a female. Just because you happen to be female, happen to make .05 cents less, and happen to work for Walmart shouldn't mean that you're automatically a victim of discrimination.

[Balta1701]

If I were to run a series of coal mines, for example, and I set the only policy being "Run coal" and I judged managers effectiveness based on how much coal each one ran...I've pushed the actual decision to ignore the safety standards on to a low enough level that based on this standard, it is the local manager making the decision so class action status against the company is not possible.

 

Basically, it creates a convenient way for a smart set of lawyers to prevent class action lawsuits for just about anything...you push the actual decision down the level far enough and no matter what the policy, class action status as a redress against a large company becomes nearly impossible

[Balta1701]

True, but I think discrimination is a different ballgame than charging (or overcharging) someone on a bill. There could be 25 reasons why you got .05 cents less per hour that has nothing to do with being a female. Just because you happen to be female, happen to make .05 cents less, and happen to work for Walmart shouldn't mean that you're automatically a victim of discrimination.

In the case of a class action suit though...that still gives walmart an argument that the suit itself is incorrect...they simply cite the actual business reason why women are being paid less and passed over for promotion. If it actually is something integral to their business, then the suit would be unsuccessful.

 

However, the group of employees should be able to bring the suit and have walmart justify why that is the case.

[Jenksismyhero]

There you go.

 

In this case, Walmart was allowing a situation where women were consistenly not promoted or paid as well as men. While it may not have been an official company policy, the company got around this by allowing the decisions to be made at a level where that type of decision was going to be made.

 

There needs to be a legal redress here and it can't be "1.5 million individual cases".

 

I don't see why people should essentially be presumed to be a victim without having to prove actual discrimination and actual damages. That's the law, regardless of how s***ty Walmart is as a company.

[Balta1701]

I don't see why people should essentially be presumed to be a victim without having to prove actual discrimination and actual damages. That's the law, regardless of how s***ty Walmart is as a company.

They're not being given the chance to prove actual discrimination though.

[Jenksismyhero]

They're not being given the chance to prove actual discrimination though.

 

Yes they are. Go file a suit and use those statistics of corporate wide discrimination to your advantage. That happens in nearly every discrimination case.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Yes they are. Go file a suit and use those statistics of corporate wide discrimination to your advantage. That happens in nearly every discrimination case.

And in this case, the difference is what, a few thousand dollars per employee? Over 1.5 million cases?

 

Having the class action status is the only way in which this would be dealt with. You've accepted that the statistics are a problem that would be something the courts would normally deal with, but once again you're happy with a decision that leaves the actual plaintiffs no realistic recourse to deal with the problem.

[Jenksismyhero]

If I were to run a series of coal mines, for example, and I set the only policy being "Run coal" and I judged managers effectiveness based on how much coal each one ran...I've pushed the actual decision to ignore the safety standards on to a low enough level that based on this standard, it is the local manager making the decision so class action status against the company is not possible.

 

Basically, it creates a convenient way for a smart set of lawyers to prevent class action lawsuits for just about anything...you push the actual decision down the level far enough and no matter what the policy, class action status as a redress against a large company becomes nearly impossible

 

Employment decisions regarding promotions or wages and the decision to ignore safety protocols are two entirely different things.

[Balta1701]

Employment decisions regarding promotions or wages and the decision to ignore safety protocols are two entirely different things.

Of course. Doesn't mean you can't process the metaphor man, come on.

[Jenksismyhero]

And in this case, the difference is what, a few thousand dollars per employee? Over 1.5 million cases?

 

Having the class action status is the only way in which this would be dealt with. You've accepted that the statistics are a problem that would be something the courts would normally deal with, but once again you're happy with a decision that leaves the actual plaintiffs no realistic recourse to deal with the problem.

 

I'm happy with a decision that forces people to prove their individual case when there's not a lot of commonality to infer that each plaintiff was the victim of the same discrimination and suffered the same types of damages.

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course. Doesn't mean you can't process the metaphor man, come on.

 

There are legitimate and lawful reasons to pay employee A, a female, less than employee B, a male, that have nothing to do with gender discrimination. The same cannot be said of skirting safety protocols. That's a terrible metaphor.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

I'm happy with a decision that forces people to prove their individual case when there's not a lot of commonality to infer that each plaintiff was the victim of the same discrimination and suffered the same types of damages.

 

If discrimination was pervasive at Walmart, you could still be a victim without being able to prove the merits of an individual case or point to a specific, personal action.

 

i.e. see Brown vs. Plata where the majority agrees with this line of reasoning.

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

Are there ever times you feel class-action is legitimate?

[BigSqwert]

Are there ever times you feel class-action is legitimate?

He's the one person that watched Erin Brockovich and rooted for her to lose.

[southsider2k5]

He's the one person that watched Erin Brockovich and rooted for her to lose.

 

There is no way that prostitute was a lawyer.

[Jenksismyhero]

Are there ever times you feel class-action is legitimate?

 

Of course, where the Plaintiff's are similar and the wrongdoing of the Defendant is the same. Products liability cases for example. I'm more inclined to agree with you about fraudulent charges like in that prior AT&T case (my issue with that was more that I didn't have a problem forcing people to go through arbitration first).