Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart, says female employees can’t sue in class action"

"The Supreme Court said lawyers failed to identify a corporate policy that resulted in thousands of women at Sam's Club and Wal-Mart stores being paid less than their male peers."
As long as there's a policy in place that supercedes constitutional law, what can you do? Ahyuck!
news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Hillbilly123069
"The Supreme Court said lawyers failed to identify a corporate policy that resulted in thousands of women at Sam's Club and Wal-Mart stores being paid less than their male peers."
As long as there's a policy in place that supercedes constitutional law, what can you do? Ahyuck!
news.yahoo.com...

I have mixed feelings on this, despite Wal-Mart being an evil corporation I tend to think most of the employees that wanted to sue did so by watching biased videos made about the chain in documentary form. In those "movies" Wal-Mart had been labeled a male dominated company and the handful that I seen subtly suggested male dominance of the company.

Outside of the movies, I don't see that in any of the 3 local Wal-Marts I shop at, in fact, 2 of them have female general managers and they employee pool is at the very least 50/50. Wal-Mart is guilty of ALOT of things I just don't see this as one of them in my opinion.

Regardless of the motivation of the employees, the reasoning being used by the Supreme Court to throw this out is assinine.

"too many plaintiffs" ? I didn't realize that there was a "number of people" restriction on justice.

reply to post by babybunnies


It's not just that there were "too many". The ruling was a result of the large number (hundreds of thousands, potentially) having differences in their complaints. It's one thing if they all had the same complaint, but when there are differences the court has to rule on all of the complaints.

The solution would be to group the women into groups with a single complaint and relaunch all complaints as single class action suits, thus streamlining the process.

It's pretty clear from the article and commentary that this is the case . . . not simply that they "can't sue their employer", as it would seem is the inference from the OP.

Deny ignorance . . . ?