As Expected, Louisville Courier Journal Doesn't Like The U. S. Supreme Court's Wal Mart Decision.
Editorial | Wal-Mart decision
Monday's momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision in a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart involves myriad legal complexities, and it may take lower courts and perhaps eventually state courts many years to sort them all out.
But there are a few bottom lines that are clear, and none of them are reassuring.
Defenders of the decision argue that the justices were unanimous in handing Wal-Mart a victory against a class-action lawsuit brought by 1.5 million former and current Wal-Mart female employees who sought billions of dollars in compensation for allegedly systemic discriminatory practices. But that consensus concerned a finding that plaintiffs' lawyers had proceeded under the wrong section of class-action rules; it could still have allowed the trial court to permit the class-action suit to proceed in a different form. The key component of the ruling — that the case did not satisfy requirements for class-action litigation — was decided by a 5-4 margin along the Court's numbingly familiar ideological split.
They will also argue that the Court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had discriminated against women. That's true, but it may be a distinction with little practical difference. By denying them the right to proceed as a class, the Court likely gives the vast majority of the women no recourse. The average wages they allege they lost as a result of sex discrimination is $1,100 a year. Few lawyers will take them on as clients for those sums.
It is possible that the Court will entertain a smaller class action that it views as more tightly defined, though in the current judicial atmosphere that would be an uphill struggle indeed. Some states have friendly climates for class-actions suits fighting discrimination, but that subjects the women to further caprice — tying their fates to the states in which they happened to work.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of “commonality” — essential to creating a class — on the grounds that the women held a variety of different jobs and worked throughout the country under differing local and regional circumstances. Of course, they did. But there was substantial evidence of a corporate culture that allowed disparities and stereotyping, and Justice Scalia's standard makes it unreasonably difficult to pursue a class action against a modern mega-company with far-flung facilities and a hierarchy of job categories.
The potential reach of this case goes well beyond mostly low-paid women who work for Wal-Mart. Higher hurdles in class actions also will make it harder for investors and consumers to pursue claims. The Court's increasingly apparent determination to protect corporate interests above all else has wide and frightening consequences.
Monday's momentous U.S. Supreme Court decision in a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart involves myriad legal complexities, and it may take lower courts and perhaps eventually state courts many years to sort them all out.
But there are a few bottom lines that are clear, and none of them are reassuring.
Defenders of the decision argue that the justices were unanimous in handing Wal-Mart a victory against a class-action lawsuit brought by 1.5 million former and current Wal-Mart female employees who sought billions of dollars in compensation for allegedly systemic discriminatory practices. But that consensus concerned a finding that plaintiffs' lawyers had proceeded under the wrong section of class-action rules; it could still have allowed the trial court to permit the class-action suit to proceed in a different form. The key component of the ruling — that the case did not satisfy requirements for class-action litigation — was decided by a 5-4 margin along the Court's numbingly familiar ideological split.
They will also argue that the Court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had discriminated against women. That's true, but it may be a distinction with little practical difference. By denying them the right to proceed as a class, the Court likely gives the vast majority of the women no recourse. The average wages they allege they lost as a result of sex discrimination is $1,100 a year. Few lawyers will take them on as clients for those sums.
It is possible that the Court will entertain a smaller class action that it views as more tightly defined, though in the current judicial atmosphere that would be an uphill struggle indeed. Some states have friendly climates for class-actions suits fighting discrimination, but that subjects the women to further caprice — tying their fates to the states in which they happened to work.
Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of “commonality” — essential to creating a class — on the grounds that the women held a variety of different jobs and worked throughout the country under differing local and regional circumstances. Of course, they did. But there was substantial evidence of a corporate culture that allowed disparities and stereotyping, and Justice Scalia's standard makes it unreasonably difficult to pursue a class action against a modern mega-company with far-flung facilities and a hierarchy of job categories.
The potential reach of this case goes well beyond mostly low-paid women who work for Wal-Mart. Higher hurdles in class actions also will make it harder for investors and consumers to pursue claims. The Court's increasingly apparent determination to protect corporate interests above all else has wide and frightening consequences.
Labels: News reporting
posted by KYJurisDoctor at 8:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home