Supreme Court rules for Wal-Mart in massive job discrimination lawsuit, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 20-6-2011 @ 10:49 AM by LDragonFire

Supreme Court rules for Wal-Mart in massive job discrimination lawsuit

news.blogs.cnn.com
The Supreme Court put the brakes on a massive job discrimination lawsuit against mega-retailer Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., saying sweeping class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was simply too large.

The ruling Monday was a big victory for the nation's largest private employer, and the business community at large
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 10:49 AM by LDragonFire

Yet another blow to citizens and yet another ruling for corporations. Read the article supplied and its easy to see what side the media is on. Most of this article is nothing more than a pr piece showing how wonderful this corporation is.

What a blow to women, boycotts should be in order.

What a farce our court system has become.

Too big to continue???? seriously?

news.blogs.cnn.com (visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 10:54 AM by Carseller4

Great news in the fight against frivolous lawsuits. Bad news for lawyers!

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 10:56 AM by Hillbilly123069

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 11:15 AM by whaaa

Originally posted by Carseller4
Great news in the fight against frivolous lawsuits. Bad news for lawyers!

Women being paid less than men is frivolous?

wps.aw.com...

This is just another indication of the Corpratracy or Corporate Oligarchy replacing the Democratic Republic that used to be the operating system in a once proud nation. I'm so glad I don't have any children for them to watch this country slide in to tyranny.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 11:19 AM by marg6043

reply to post by whaaa

No only that but our nation is now been held into the hands of those that practice the bastardized version of capitalism, where everything benefits the elite running the government but not the people.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 11:33 AM by grey580

You know since women do most of the shopping.
I think some boycotting is in order.

Time to organize and show Walmart the error of it's ways.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 11:55 AM by InnerTruths

So the lawsuit got dropped because it involves TOO MANY people? That's a first! lol wow!
If there are so many involved, it should be encouraged! This is ridiculous. Walmart needs to go down!

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 12:00 PM by Extralien

And just in case anyone in the UK thinks that wal mart does not affect them, then think again....

ASDA is a subsidiary of wal mart;

Asda Stores Ltd is a British supermarket chain which retails financial services,[1] food, clothing, toys and general merchandise. It also has a mobile telephone network, Asda Mobile. Its head office is in Asda House in Leeds, West Yorkshire.[2] Asda became a subsidiary of the American retail giant Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer,[3] in 1999,[4] and is the second largest chain in the UK after Tesco.[5] In December 2010, Asda's share of the UK grocery market stood at 16.5%.[6] Asda's marketing promotions have usually been based solely on price, with Asda promoting itself under the slogan Britain's Lowest Priced Supermarket, 13 Years Running. As a wholly owned division of Wal-Mart, Asda is not required to declare quarterly or half-yearly earnings. It submits full accounts to Companies House each October.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now have a good read of ASDA's privacy policy;

If you submit a comment on an article or if you submit any text, photos or videos for use on the website or in a competition we ask you for your name, location and email address. Your name and location will be published; your email address will not be published. When you visit our site, we will automatically receive your IP address, a unique identifier for your computer or other access device.

We collect your email address

Our web system collects information about each visitor, including IP address, the length of time spent on the website and the pages visited. We may employ third party experts to help us look at this information.

In order to carry out the steps detailed above we may send your personal information outside of the European Economic Area and, if necessary, across international borders.

Any details you provide may be electronically transferred to the US to our parent company Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

your.asda.com...

And this sentence strikes me as interesting;

We will not store your personal information for any longer than necessary.

Well, ASDA wont, but Wal Mart will...

And this bit is confusing;

You have a right to access the personal information that is held about you. To obtain a copy of the personal information Asda holds about you, please write to us at the following address enclosing your postal details and a cheque for £10, which we are entitled by law to charge

What happened to the freedom of information act? I could demand that ASDA send me a copy of every image/video of me that they have ever captured.. and they have to it.. for free..

So now we know a bit more about ASDA and its connection with wal mart.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 12:35 PM by Logarock

Originally posted by InnerTruths
So the lawsuit got dropped because it involves TOO MANY people? That's a first! lol wow!
If there are so many involved, it should be encouraged! This is ridiculous. Walmart needs to go down!

This may sound bad to you but if you think about it the SC couldnt allow the chance of any result based on a few good cases making good or bad for the whole thing. Its just abuse of the system. It was about a whole lot of people wanting to get a taste of sugar based on the cases of a few.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 02:02 PM by LDragonFire

So if you wrong a group of people in this case women, as long as you wrong over a million this is just cause to throw it out.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 02:40 PM by David9176

reply to post by LDragonFire

So if you wrong a group of people in this case women

Yeah, it's kind of the point of a class action lawsuit. Now these women can try to sue individually, but likely will never win as they will never be able to afford the lawyers that Walmart can....and not only that....leaves them open for losing their job if they try to do anything about it while still employed there.

Pretty sad really. Again, class action lawsuit is essentially a bunch of people represented by lawyers, A UNION, suing for a common cause.

Lawyers will most likely not take the cases for individuals as it is extremely time consuming/costly and the pay day would be smaller for them even if they should win.

This is another loss for the American worker.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:36 PM by solomons path

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. As opposed to most class action suits you see (mostly against pharma), where there are many people with identical complaints . . . i.e. "people experience seizures due to medication; however, no warning about seizures or certain groups being susceptible".

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. And, I'd assume their lawyers were instructed as much in the lower courts when/if this action was denied previous to making the docket at SCOTUS.

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 . . . ?

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:45 PM by Skewed

The worse part about it all is, ultimately, this could be solved out of court and put walmart into financial ruin. People will piss and moan about how terrible it is that employees are treated that way and say something ought to be done about it. Then they turn around and go load up on a cart full of crap and just encouraging them to keep up with their evil ways.

People need to quit complaining, I am tired of hearing it, there is something people can do, quit shopping there and they will go out of business, I guarandamntee it.

Walmart out of business = problem solved.

edit on 20-6-2011 by Skewed because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 04:51 PM by solomons path

reply to post by Skewed

S for you my brotha!!

That's exactly the way to handle them . . . although I fear as much as Wal-industries has changed retail supply and pricing, they would be deemed too big to fail. Walmart going under would effect the companies that supply Walmart/Sam's Club, to the point of collapse also. I've heard/read several companies claim that Walmart makes up 80% of their sales (not from Wal customers but from the corp to stock stores). I say let them fail too, for hitching their wagon to a goliath of corporate greed.

reply posted on 20-6-2011 @ 05:00 PM by Skewed

reply to post by solomons path

There would be a period that things are a little chaotic but it would work itself out. The world would not end because walmart was gone, it would change things, but walmart being gone would be for the better no matter how one would look at it. The system would keep on going as someone else would step in to take walmarts place, hopefully, it would be a new trend of small hometown stores sprouting back up. The lost jobs from walmart leaving would re-emerge into what ever took up the slack for what walmart had and would probably create more jobs via multiple new business establishments. Maybe, just maybe, we would see our towns transform back to what they were before walmart.

Pages: ^^TOP^^