The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

In the hypothetical he has a point. But in reality it's not a good one because everyday people get screwed in various ways. They could file suit if they want, but ultimately it's not worth the cost of filing a suit. So you eat the cost. It sucks, but it's life. Class actions don't deter companies from doing whatever they did wrong, so it's not like the system is some great savior to society. As I've argued before, in the long run it's probably more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims than to pay out a 1.5 million person class action.

Of course its more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims....but it's insulting to our intelligence to say that 100k small claims would be filed. The correct number of small claims likely to be filed in the AT&T case for example is 0. The number in this case is probably at best in the teens...because you can't argue for systematic discrimination on the part of the company, rather you need to argue that you have strong evidence you were passed over in a specific case because of a specific person's discrimination.

 

"It sucks, eat the cost" is not an acceptable answer. I'm going to remember that one whenever you complain about anything else done illegally, say, illegal immigrants. "It sucks, they're here, deal with it."

[StrangeSox]

An individual can get punitive damages. That is the "punishment", think of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. She won millions of dollars for all of the cups of coffee that were served to hot. That lawsuit could have been a claim where millions of people from McDonalds sued because McD's served coffee to hot. So they would have each gotten a coupon to McD's while their attorneys made millions.

Isn't that a little different because she was actually physically harmed, and pretty seriously? That's different from someone who's claim would be "I burned my tongue on their coffee" even if the cause was the same.

 

The bottom line is that an individual lawsuit or a class action lawsuit can punish a corporation in the same way. The entire purpose of the Class is that they are so similar, it would be a waste of time to adjudicate individual claims. These are claims that arise from the same incident, same transaction, where the same depositions, same interrogatories etc would have to be done thousands of times, instead of once.

 

Look at the Wal-Mart case, these are factually different cases, by different people. If anything making this a class would make there be more work, because youd have to depose every single manager from every Wal-Mart, where as if it was a single case it may only be necessary to depose that single store.

 

That's what the AT&T v Concepcion case was. It was a suit over their "Free" phone offer where the people had to pay taxes on the phone. Anyone who bought the same plan and phone had the same incident. Dubious claim, maybe, but that wasn't at issue in the decision. But who the hell is going to bother filing over $30? So even if AT&T was in the wrong, thousands are not going to bother with arbitration for $30. And I don't see why the court would suddenly award millions to one person for that since its substantially different from actually being injured like the McD's coffee case. Keep the fraud small and bar any class suits, and you'll get away with it.

 

 

 

Class Actions are a way for attorneys to try and get huge fees on small cases. There is a reason why they make classes, and its not to get their client $30. Im not sure that Ive ever dealt with a corporation that wouldnt settle for under $100 with no questions asked.

 

So does the Class Action help individuals? It helps those that didnt know they were damaged in the first place.

Which could be a substantial number of people if the fraud wasn't blatant. That doesn't make their damages any less legitimate but feeds right into "keep it small and you'll get away with it.

 

I got $150 from UnitedHC as part of a class suit. I didn't know I was being systematically overcharged for out-of-network care, but I was. Without that class suit, UnitedHC doesn't have to come to a 9-figure settlement. And yeah, the lawyers took a big chunk, but the alternative is "tens of thousands never know they were defrauded and get nothing"

 

So yes my argument does address it, because it shows why Class Action lawsuits arent as important as they are being made out to be in this thread. if you care enough, you have the right to go to court and have your day in the sun.

 

No, it still doesn't. If anything, it reinforces the contention that if you keep it small, it simply will not be worth the time, effort and potential financial risk for most people to file, if they even realize that you've defrauded them. It tips the balance strongly in favor of the defrauders over the defraudees.

[Jenksismyhero]

How exactly if you're an individual defendant in this case who got passed over for a promotion do you establish that you were passed over because of a weighted system and not because of an individual management decision?

 

Can't all 1.5 million of these cases argue that the decisions were individual cases and nothing untoward happened in that specific case?

 

The real problem appears to have been that this was an institutional policy that impacted everyone. How do you deal with it when it's an instititutional issue? And more importantly now what reason does Walmart have to correct it when it can, in every case, just push the blame for a lack of promotion/equal pay downwards to individual departments that no one would ever sue?

 

The same way the lawyers in the class action would have tried to prove it - point to statistics of the company, show that the company has a history of doing this to women, point to the fact that the individual plaintiff had an excellent record, was qualified, etc.

 

And I think you have a fundamental understanding of how this whole thing works. You do realize that the lowest of low manager IS Walmart right? So regardless of how it all plays out (who discriminates), Walmart is still liable. How many CEO's make every HR decision? That's why Title VII is drafted the way it is.

 

[StrangeSox]

In the hypothetical he has a point. But in reality it's not a good one because everyday people get screwed in various ways. They could file suit if they want, but ultimately it's not worth the cost of filing a suit. So you eat the cost. It sucks, but it's life. Class actions don't deter companies from doing whatever they did wrong, so it's not like the system is some great savior to society. As I've argued before, in the long run it's probably more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims than to pay out a 1.5 million person class action.

 

It wasn't a hypothetical, it was the actual dollar amount the Concepcions claim they and thousands of others were defrauded over.

 

And the point is you're not going to get 100k small claims. You'll get a handful, maybe. Much less than 1.5M worth.

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

because you can't argue for systematic discrimination on the part of the company, rather you need to argue that you have strong evidence you were passed over in a specific case because of a specific person's discrimination.

 

Um that just isnt true. As an individual plaintiff you could argue that there was systematic discrimination, and you could ask for punitive damages against Walmart as a whole.

 

Why would they not be able to sue for systematic discrimination, if it occurred and they were damaged, what would prevent them?

Edited June 21, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

Of course its more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims....but it's insulting to our intelligence to say that 100k small claims would be filed. The correct number of small claims likely to be filed in the AT&T case for example is 0. The number in this case is probably at best in the teens...because you can't argue for systematic discrimination on the part of the company, rather you need to argue that you have strong evidence you were passed over in a specific case because of a specific person's discrimination.

 

"It sucks, eat the cost" is not an acceptable answer. I'm going to remember that one whenever you complain about anything else done illegally, say, illegal immigrants. "It sucks, they're here, deal with it."

 

If out of 1.5 million there's only a "handful" of people with legitimate claims, then it's probably not some wide spread corporate policy.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Lets put it this way...will you guys place a wager that there will be more than 100,000 claims, less than 10% of the plaintiffs, who file the exact type of discrimination suit against Walmart that you say they should be able to win with ease based on the data?

[Balta1701]

If out of 1.5 million there's only a "handful" of people with legitimate claims, then it's probably not some wide spread corporate policy.

There are probably well over a million who have legitimate claims...they just will never bring them.

 

You're just playing dumb now.

[Jenksismyhero]

It wasn't a hypothetical, it was the actual dollar amount the Concepcions claim they and thousands of others were defrauded over.

 

And the point is you're not going to get 100k small claims. You'll get a handful, maybe. Much less than 1.5M worth.

 

I was referring to your .05 cent wage difference point.

[StrangeSox]

We went over this before, but i'm too lazy to look it up. It didn't bar you completely from filing suit. At some point you had the choice to continue with the arbitration process or seek redress in court.

 

 

I responded to that idea, which I disagree with. And class actions are not being removed, they are being narrowed.

 

AT&T's clause in that specific contract didn't, but there are many that do and I pulled up several. You can be forced into mandatory binding arbitration with zero ability to act in a class in a contract. Many consumer and, increasingly, employment contracts contain such provisions.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

There are probably well over a million who have legitimate claims...they just will never bring them.

 

You're just playing dumb now.

 

Um, ok? Look, you clearly have some irrational bias towards Walmart and big companies. Hell, you've already determined for everyone that there IS a corporate policy for discriminating against women. So what's the point in arguing with you?

[StrangeSox]

Um, ok? Look, you clearly have some irrational bias towards Walmart and big companies. Hell, you've already determined for everyone that there IS a corporate policy for discriminating against women. So what's the point in arguing with you?

 

Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument.

 

eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them.

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Soxbadger]

Isn't that a little different because she was actually physically harmed, and pretty seriously? That's different from someone who's claim would be "I burned my tongue on their coffee" even if the cause was the same.

 

No she got punitive damages because McDonalds served coffee to hot for industry standard. Injuries are direct damages, not punitive which are to punish. Which goes back to the point that an individual lawsuit can punish a corp.

 

That's what the AT&T v Concepcion case was. It was a suit over their "Free" phone offer where the people had to pay taxes on the phone. Anyone who bought the same plan and phone had the same incident. Dubious claim, maybe, but that wasn't at issue in the decision. But who the hell is going to bother filing over $30? So even if AT&T was in the wrong, thousands are not going to bother with arbitration for $30. And I don't see why the court would suddenly award millions to one person for that since its substantially different from actually being injured like the McD's coffee case. Keep the fraud small and bar any class suits, and you'll get away with it.

 

That case was bounced for mandatory arb clause. Entirely different argument.

 

I got $150 from UnitedHC as part of a class suit. I didn't know I was being systematically overcharged for out-of-network care, but I was. Without that class suit, UnitedHC doesn't have to come to a 9-figure settlement. And yeah, the lawyers took a big chunk, but the alternative is "tens of thousands never know they were defrauded and get nothing"

 

No, it still doesn't. If anything, it reinforces the contention that if you keep it small, it simply will not be worth the time, effort and potential financial risk for most people to file, if they even realize that you've defrauded them. It tips the balance strongly in favor of the defrauders over the defraudees.

 

The Court is there to address those who have the time and effort to care.

 

Class action suits are to make life easier for the court, not life easier for the Plaintiff's. Thats a pretty major point that seems to be lost in this thread.

[Balta1701]

The Court is there to address those who have the time and effort to care.

Time...effort....and MONEY.

[Jenksismyhero]

Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument.

 

eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them.

 

Reading through his posts it's pretty clear what his bias is. It started with the "ZOMG SCALIA RUINED THE WORLD AGAIN!" post. Which is fine. That's his right. But at some point it's no longer a logical argument about the pros and cons of class action lawsuits, and its more about "WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?" responses.

[Soxbadger]

As I explained before you can get a fee waiver, so no cost to Pro Se Plaintiff.

[StrangeSox]

The Court is there to address those who have the time and effort to care.

 

This still ignores the moral hazard Breyer points out. Structure the fraud such that you still get huge benefits worth millions of dollars from it, but spread it out such that individuals won't "care" enough to spend significant amounts of time over a low-dollar complaint they might not even be aware of, and you're highly unlikely to see any problems.

 

The balance of power is still heavily tilted.

[Balta1701]

As I explained before you can get a fee waiver, so no cost to Pro Se Plaintiff.

Are you really prepared to argue that the majority of people employed at Walmart would suffer no financial strain if they were to bring individual lawsuits for discrimination against that firm?

[Jenksismyhero]

Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument.

 

eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them.

 

Evil or not, they're an incredibly smart company. Do you honestly believe they teach their managers to discriminate against women? I don't. I have no doubt in my mind some in their management team thinks that way. All or most big companies do. But in my experience, on both sides of these cases, there's almost always a legitimate reason for differences in pay/promotions/what have you unless you're dealing with those select few assholes who really do think that way.

 

[Balta1701]

Evil or not, they're an incredibly smart company. Do you honestly believe they teach their managers to discriminate against women? I don't. I have no doubt in my mind some in their management team thinks that way. All or most big companies do. But in my experience, on both sides of these cases, there's almost always a legitimate reason for differences in pay/promotions/what have you unless you're dealing with those select few assholes who really do think that way.

No, but if they were to happen to hire and promote managers who systematically discriminated against women in salary, that would save the company a fortune.

[StrangeSox]

As I explained before you can get a fee waiver, so no cost to Pro Se Plaintiff.

 

Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own.

 

Not sure how losing class action (mandatory arb. with no class cases) doesn't wind up as effectively keeping poor and less-intelligent people from ever getting recourse from legitimate damages.

 

But like I've said, I'm not arguing the decision in Walmart was wrong, this is more about class suits in general.

[Jenksismyhero]

No, but if they were to happen to hire and promote managers who systematically discriminated against women in salary, that would save the company a fortune.

 

So greedy companies that care only about money and profit aren't going to discriminate against men in the same way?

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own.

 

Not sure how losing class action (mandatory arb. with no class cases) doesn't wind up as effectively keeping poor and less-intelligent people from ever getting recourse from legitimate damages.

 

But like I've said, I'm not arguing the decision in Walmart was wrong, this is more about class suits in general.

 

This rarely, if ever happens, and most laws are written to protect pro se plaintiffs and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when construing things like complaints and charges of discrimination and the like. And attorneys fees and costs, at least in Illinois and Federal courts, aren't available except in frivolous cases, and I think only against attorneys who bring those cases, not pro se plaintiffs.

[Balta1701]

Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own.

It's also worth noting this.

A private, San Francisco-based foundation that spent $770,000 in support of the legal battle waged by female employees of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is considering pulling its funding after the Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of the big-box retailer.

[Soxbadger]

Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own.

 

Just for reference, have you ever been involved in a case involving a Pro Se Plaintiff, or even witnessed a case involving a Pro Se Plaintiff?