About the WalMart decision:

[elleng]

This was essentially a procedural decision, NOT on the merits of 'discrimination.' I think DUers should be aware of this.

'The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.

The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.

The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/business/21bizcourt.html?_r=1&hp

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. Sorry, but any court outcome of any kind that fails to result in WalMart's liquidation

is a travesty. This is not limited to the Supreme Court, but also includes other courts:

Tennis courts
Basketball courts
Traffic courts
People's Court
Moot Court
Court of Public Opinion
Motor courts

and so forth.

[Jane Austin]

2. I have a good friend who is a Civil Procedure law professor who says

that class definition was going to be very difficult to defend.

It may have something to do with whether or not they made the case that it was a company-wide policy.

Believe it or not, they may have ruled on the merits of the case and not have ruled ideologically.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a Civil Procedure professor, and she should surely know the law in a case like this.

[elleng]

4. Right, Ruth surely knows.

'plaintiffs could not show that they would receive “a common answer to the crucial question why was I disfavored.” He noted that Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer, operated some 3,400 stores, had an express policy forbidding discrimination and granted local managers substantial discretion.

“On its face, of course, that is just the opposite of a uniform employment practice that would provide the commonality needed for a class action,” Justice Scalia wrote. “It is a policy against having uniform employment practices.”

The case involved “literally millions of employment decisions,” Justice Scalia wrote, and the plaintiffs were required to point to “some glue holding all those decisions together.”'

[HockeyMom]

6. To use the FEA lawsuit as an example

and that is a class action suit also, it involves specific monetary damages, 3% employee pension contributions, for ALL Florida state employees. The PBA joined the FEA class action suit because the same 3% pension contribution applies to all their members too. As I said on another tread, it wouldn't surprise me if the Teamsters join it too for their members (food services, bus drivers, custodians, etc.) because all these people are under the same 3% contribution umbrella. Different groups of people with the same common grounds, that 3% pension contribution.

[Lionessa]

3. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the not allowing class action

makes each individual have to go up against Wal-Mart with all the expense rather than shared expense of a class action. If effectively hobbles any further reasonable action by anyone not already rich.

[elleng]

5. Yes, that's the problem, and also the rationale for the 'class action' process.

[DCKit]

7. Thanks for that elleng.

While I'm in sympathy with the other posters, I also understand the legalities.

Your dispassionate explanation of how and why is a good lesson.

[elleng]

8. Thanks, DCK. Lawyer-speak, that's me (+ my family!)