The rights of the Americans continue to be eroded by the Supreme Court

[Sarah Ibarruri]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday blocked a massive sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of female employees in a decision that makes it harder to mount large-scale bias claims against the biggest U.S. companies.

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

A class action is a form of lawsuit in which a group of people collectively bring a claim to court.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43464488/ns/business-consumer_news?gt1=43001

[Uncle Joe]

1. I don't understand this paragraph.

The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

Which is it a unanimous decision or 5-4?

Thanks for the thread, Sarah Ibarruri.

[Igel]

4. Yes.

There were three parts to the decision.

Part I: The case, as structured, didn't pass the requirements to be certified as class action under the rule required for such things.

Part II: However, SCOTUS adduced a second reason, based on a second rule. It basically said that not only was the first rule not satisfied, but a rule stipulating that the cases must be resolved by settling essentially a single question (I think I got that right) also wasn't met. Apparently the plaintiffs relied on statistical sampling and a lot of anecdotal information, if I read it correctly, and so it wasn't clear that the evidence as presented could ever possibly show the same policy in the single organization was responsible for similar outcomes across the organization.

The first problem might be fixable. The second is hardly fixable without a thorough-going revision of the case.

Part I (and Part III) were unanimous. All 9 justices agreed.

Part II was not unanimous. I thought it was 6-3, but perhaps it was 5-4. The dissent wasn't that the case satisfied the second rule; the dissent was that issuing a decision about the second rule was early and unnecessary, therefore improper; if, on remand, the first issue was fixed and the case again appealed then they could deal with the second rule.

I didn't get to Part III. In this sort of game it's "one strike and you're out." I was curious as to what the dissent was, so I skimmed Part II.

[Uncle Joe]

5. This sentence in your response re: their deliberations reminds me of the Citizens United decision

when the activist Robert's court went beyond the scope of the original case to toss out a near century's worth of precedent. If I remember correctly, they deliberately broadened that case as well.

"Part II was not unanimous. I thought it was 6-3, but perhaps it was 5-4. The dissent wasn't that the case satisfied the second rule; the dissent was that issuing a decision about the second rule was early and unnecessary, therefore improper; if, on remand, the first issue was fixed and the case again appealed then they could deal with the second rule."

[KansDem]

2. Really?

...court said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

"Too Big to Sue?"

If there are "too many women in too many jobs" to protect from sexual discrimination, then it's time to reduce the size of the corporation.

Perhaps an increase in corporate taxes? Could provide revenue to increase size of regulatory agencies who oversee "too many women in too many jobs."

[HockeyMom]

3. In other words, the female cashiers,

female clerks, female LP, etc., would each have to bring a specific cause for suit. What are the different griveances against specific jobs by females. I think that is what they said. The suit is too broad in scope.

I am not defending either the Supremes nor Walmart.

[glinda]

6. Wish we could hold the SC in contempt and in violation of the Constitution.