Did the SCOTUS actually say there could be NO class action suits ever?

[Atman]

I don't believe so. I, for one, am waiting for a more thorough analysis of the decision before I jerk my knees. There must be a reason the decision was unanimous instead of the usual 5-4 split between the corporatist wing and the more reasonable side. From what I hear so far, this particular class action was flawed and had become so large and it's scope so sweeping that it was not manageable, or something along those lines.

Far be it from me to defend Wal Mart -- I'm not, I can't stand them and refuse to shop there -- but the hysteria surrounding the unusual unanimous decision just might be a little misplaced.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Here's the analysis in a nutshell.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/06/20/37510.htm

[justiceischeap]

5. As I understand that, female employees from the same store suffering discrimination

would have to band together and sue that individual store/manager. Since Wal-Mart doesn't have a written company-wide policy on discrimination, they failed to meet commonality. So, even though it seems to be an UNSPOKEN policy of the corporation, only individuals from the same store can prove commonality. Right?

[Atman]

9. Yes. The store or the regional manager could be sued, but not Wal Mart.

They can still file a class action. That's what's upsetting about reading all these posts on DU...people aren't understanding what the court said. File a class action if you want, but it has to be about something specific, not just that "Wal Mart sucks and treated me unfairly!"

.

[no_hypocrisy]

15. Sounds right.

Courts can be convinced to recognize a reality via evidence and extrapolation.

[Atman]

8. That's an excellent synopsis, thank you. And it backs up what I posted.

No one is forbidden from filing a class action suit because of this ruling. But if a class action suit is filed, it must actually be about something specific. That's basically what they were saying. You can have a grievance, fine. File away. But Wal Mart's policy gave discretion to individual managers, it was not a centralized policy, and only a handful of stores out of their 3,400 were included. So a class action suit against individual stores or regions, it would appear, could be legitimate IF they were filed correctly. This class action went after the entire chain for the grievances against a small percentage of their operation, concentrated in only six states. I hate to say it, but I don't find a lot to argue with about this ruling. It sucks, I would have loved to have seen Wal Mart brought down, but you can't argue with facts. This was a broad-brush, over-reaching suit which probably never should have gone forward in the first place, and that synopsis explains why quite clearly.

.

[liberal N proud]

2. Yes they threw out only this Class Action but...

Supreme Court decisions are always considered precedent, making it much more difficult to use class action in the future.

The big story is the precedent set by this decs ion.

[kenfrequed]

19. There are a few exceptions

The most notable would be the Bush v. Gore 2000.

But yes, in this case I am afraid that this will be used improperly as a precedent for a new round of 'too big to sue' arguments. We really needed to get Thomas out of there.

[polmaven]

3. You are correct.

SCOTUS said this particular suit was to large and that many of the women were not eligible to be part of the class....At least that is my understanding. The second decision, 5-4, did say there was not sufficient evidence to show that Walmart had discriminated. THAT one was more like what we expect from this court.

[Recursion]

16. Too large and not universal enough

They're basically saying this is too concentrated in the South, and Wal~Mart's policy is too laissez-faire, to say it's a company-wide thing. They can still have a class action in specific regions or districts.

[polmaven]

22. Thank you

for clarifying that for me.

[kick-ass-bob]

4. Basically that the 'harm' was not close enough to being the same

so they could not be all encompassed in the same lawsuit. NOT, what Wal-Mart wanted, that all women file their own suits.

[olegramps]

6. The vote was split 5 to 4 right along party lines.

[Brickbat]

7. .

[Atman]

10. It absolutely was not. It was unanimous. 8-0.

Facts are facts.

[olegramps]

21. My understanding is that there are two aspects to the suit:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg led the four-member dissent saying the court's holding "disqualifies the class at the starting gate" for putting too much of a burden on the plaintiffs to show how their individual claims are sufficiently similar to form a class-action suit.

"The 'dissimilarities' approach leads the court to train its attention on what distinguishes individual class members, rather than on what unites them," Ginsburg wrote and was joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

I would need further information to sort this out and its impact on class action suits. I was told that it was this aspect that had greater concequences than the dismissal of the action against Walmart.

[alc]

11. the way I read it (very unreliable I'm sure)

The group needs to be homogeneous. For example, a suit against Tylenol could not include all pain medicine users. Since there was no company-wide directive and store managers had a lot of discretion the defendants were not allowed to show problems at some stores and make claims against all 4000 stores.

I think the EEOC could fine the company for not having enough corporate oversight of stores, but individuals and groups can not make claims without smaller granularity suits showing the lack of corporate oversight directly affected them.

[Bake]

12. The problem is that NO company would be stupid enough

to put discriminatory policy in writing. But they will sure as hell TOLERATE discrimination, even promote it informally.

That's where the class action has proven invaluable.

And the Supes just said no.

I'm waiting for further clarification in the next case to go to the Supes. And by the way, I have practiced class action law for a number of years.

Bake

[Atman]

13. But if it really was a company-wide policy...

...wouldn't that somehow be provable? The fact that nearly all the claims were focused in just six states -- doesn't that make it not really a class action against Wal Mart, and instead a class action against, perhaps, the regional managers or at some lower level, and not the corporation itself?

Again, I want to be sure I keep saying this...I hate Wal Mart, I refuse to step foot in one even if it's an "emergency" and I just need a quick package of $1 tube socks. But I also can see the reasoning behind this ruling. Of course, I have not practiced any kind of law ever, so I do appreciate and respect your comments.

[Recursion]

17. They seem to have forgotten to tell the store managers outside of the Deep South

That's how I read this: if a company-wide relief is sought you have to show a company-wide problem, and this really does seem to be a southern problem.

[nichomachus]

14. No, but they made it extremely difficult

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-walmart-20110621,0,5529313.story

"Women and minorities who think they are underpaid will find it nearly impossible to band together to sue employers for discrimination under a Supreme Court ruling against 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees in the most important job-bias case in a decade.

"Only if there is proof a company has a policy of paying less to women or minorities can the employees get together in a class-action suit, the court said in an opinion Monday by Justice Antonin Scalia. Statistics showing that a company's female workers earn far less and get fewer promotions than men will not suffice, the court said."

So, as long as they don't put discriminatory policies in writing, they are free to discriminate.

Of course, the death of class action suits is the long-standing goal of corporations. Individuals who suffer discrimination or even small groups -- such as a single WalMart store -- don't have the resources to sue. This is a huge victory for corporations.

[Ratty]

18. Is this the end of "culture of" class action suits? nt

[riderinthestorm]

20. Jonathan Turley speculated that AT&T vs Concepcion decided in April was the beginning of the end

of class action lawsuits. I believe the Wal-Mart case may be part of a larger trend. A very disturbing trend.


"Last Wednesday, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case of AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion. The justices split along ideological lines once again. The 5 to 4 decision came down on the side of corporations—and most likely eliminated the right of citizens to band together to bring class action lawsuits against large corporations.

The Concepcion case involved cellphones and a common type of contract that requires customers to press their claims through arbitration instead of through lawsuits. As reported by Robert Barnes in The Washington Post, these types of contracts “which mandate individual rather than group claims, are becoming standard for companies offering loans, cable service, credit cards and even employment.”

...snip....

"Milhiser also wrote that the ruling in AT & T Mobility v. Concepcion expands on an abusive practice known as “forced arbitration.” This expansion could allow corporations to force their consumers, workers, and patients to sign away their right to sue the company in a real court."


http://jonathanturley.org/2011/04/30/will-the-supreme-courts-decision-in-at-t-mobility-v-concepcion-bring-an-end-to-class-action-lawsuits-against-large-corporations/