nytimes: Wal-Mart Wins. Workers Lose

[spanone]

Wal-Mart Wins. Workers Lose.
Wal-Mart Stores asked the Supreme Court to make a million or more of the company’s current and former female employees fend for themselves in individual lawsuits instead of seeking billions of dollars for discrimination in a class-action lawsuit. Wal-Mart got what it wanted from the court — unanimous dismissal of the suit as the plaintiffs presented it — and more from the five conservative justices, who went further in restricting class actions in general.

The majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia will make it substantially more difficult for class-action suits in all manner of cases to move forward. For 45 years, since Congress approved the criteria for class actions, the threshold for certification of a class has been low, with good reason because certification is merely the first step in a suit. Members of a potential class have had to show that they were numerous, had questions of law or fact in common and had representatives with typical claims who would protect the interests of the class.

Justice Scalia significantly raised the threshold of certification, writing that there must be “glue” holding together the claims of a would-be class. Now, without saying what the actual standard of proof is, the majority requires that potential members of a class show that they are likely to prevail at trial when they seek initial certification. In this change, the court has made fact-finding a major part of certification, increasing the cost and the stakes of starting a class action.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four moderates on the court, dissented from Justice Scalia’s broader analysis and sought a much narrower holding. The minority found that the plaintiffs had cleared the bar for certification with evidence suggesting that “gender bias suffused Wal-Mart’s company culture” but would have sent the case back to the trial court to consider whether the class action should have gone forward in a different form.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21tue1.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

[former9thward]

1. This case never should have been appealed to the SC.

The vote was 8-0 in favor of Wal-Mart and just allowed the conservatives to impose more restrictions. The attorneys who appealed to the SC were very irresponsible. They should have known it would be tossed. They had no support on the court from the liberal members.

[Octafish]

2. Wal-mart chairman makes more in an hour than average worker does in a year.

CEO of Walmart Makes in One Hour What the Average Employee Makes In a Year: How Skyrocketing Inequality Is Hurting America

A new report shows exactly who the top 0.1 percent of Americans with all the wealth are. The question is, what can we do about it?

[BlueIris]

3. Thanks. Illuminating. nt