Women v. Men, The Class Action Suit?
As we move from spring into early summer, the season turns to watching the U.S. Supreme Court render its final decisions of the term. Among the most-anticipated this session was their decision in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, a potentially massive class action suit that has had ripple effects throughout our economy.
The Court, issuing what was in effect a two-part decision, struck down the Ninth Circuit’s certification of the class of female employees. It was in two parts because, while the nine justices were unanimous in their vacating of one of the procedural issues, they were split on the overall question of whether the total class ought to be certified. In the usual bit of kabuki theater, left-wing pundits decried the decision as a “blow for corporate privilege” while the right was talking about the importance of this decision to business.
But the decision is important to all of us, corporatists and capitalists alike.
Women, per se, are not a “class,” as that definition pertains to the rules underlying class action lawsuits. If anything else, this definition was an affirmation of individual rights — especially the individual right to sue someone else for the actual harms they may have caused them.
Women and men are each individually different. Each person has his or her own strengths and weaknesses, our own different experiences, our own attributes and deficiencies. What the High Court affirmed was the idea that for the class action suit to have merit, the so-called class of plaintiffs needed to have far more commonality in their experiences to merit a “class” for the purposes of the class action suit.
Essentially, all the class really had in common was that they were all women who were employed by Wal-Mart, and that wasn’t enough “glue” to hold the class together. It would be akin to someone filing a lawsuit on behalf of all women for discrimination by all men, an argument that might seem absurd on its face, but really isn’t when one considers the prevalence of class action lawsuits in today’s society.
What the High Court stated yesterday was very plain: in order for a class to proceed, you have to have some sort of real and verifiable nexus between the plaintiffs, some common actuality — like a VCR that habitually catches fire or drywall that causes mold. In this particular case, the plaintiffs’ attorneys weren’t relying on actual claims from the women in the class, but on sampling data and anecdotes. But because litigation is supposed to focus on real cases and controversies, samples and anecdotes simply won’t work.
You’ve missed the point, why people are upset. A “class” of women suing could get potentially billions of $ from Walmart. It would be used to fund a good 2 hours off per woman who had worked at Walmart from 18 BCE through about 2025. The remainder of the money (many billions, still) would have gone to good, kind, virtuous lawyers, the sort who the world admires and reveres. One of them could have used the money as a warchest to make a Senate run, perhaps even a presidential bid. We *need* this sort of person, because he can use his vast wealth to tell the rest of us how to live.
All of this destroyed over some legal technicality, the result of which is that Walmart will be allowed to keep the profits it makes, and not have to turn them over to its virtuous workers. Anyone think this is right?
David, very well said, tongue planted firmly in cheek.
I agree, although if I had written it, my tongue would not be in cheek.
Lawyers never solve problems. They find them.
When they can’t find them, they create them.
When are ugly and/or fat people going to start suing magazines/media/commercials for only hiring attractive/slim/fit people? I’m sure there are quite a few class-action lawsuits to be had for cases like that.
/sarc
Sarcasm or tomorrow’s headline?
Don’t forget us hairy guys! We are never shown basking on the beach in those ads for various vacation paradises. For that matter, when was the last time you saw a man with a big but well-groomed beard in an ad?
ROTFL! True… All of those guys are ‘waxed’ and ‘shiny’ in a very unnatural way.
And, yes, why the hate on bearded men? The only time you seem to see them in ads is when it’s for selling products to SHAVE IT OFF!
zztop needs to bring a LAWSUIT!
Just as there is no longer any valid need for “affirmative action” (was there ever?), there is no longer any need to further advance women’s “rights.”
it is amazing to me that other countries actually look up to amerika’s legal clusterf%^&. i read it earlier tonite on another post, lawyers don’t create anything worth having. they just figure out who is making $$ and find a way to take it. i read where the vast majority of our elected $hit$ are lawyers. so, how could it possibably be a surprise to anybody that they have spent us into oblivion? put hundreds of lawyers in a room and tell them to produce something and i’ll bet they find a way to spend everybody else’s $$$$. wait, this sounds familiar.
we need to start voting for honest average everyday people to hold elected office, before it is too late. maybe it already is. i’ve never known a lawyer who lost his/her license (obamas), much less two in one family. wonder what terrible thing could be bad enough to cause that? hmmm. didn’t know community organizing could jeopardize all that free affirmative action schooling.
i get a kick out of these half-wits on news programs bragging about how open and transparent the present admin. is. had one on fox today. they must not have been here on earth for the health care debacle.