Supreme Court rules against Walmart class action suit
The Supreme Court has shown some sense and dismissed the Walmart class action suit as way too broad and inclusive.
I had written about the Walmart suit previously:
There is really no evidence of a discriminatory policy on the part of Walmart, either. In fact, Walmart’s official policy is explicitly non-discriminatory, but promotion decisions are de-centralized and made through individual discretion. The plaintiffs contend that, through some sort of oozing osmosis, these individual decisions become saturated with gender discrimination that flows down from above and is therefore Walmart management’s responsibility.
How did it come to this? How did we get to the point of ignoring actual policy and looking only at equality of outcome as the indicator of what a policy might be?
That’s a rhetorical question, of course; we know how.
It is encouraging that the Supreme Court made the ruling in a rare but encouraging instance of unanimity (although they ruled with the usual 5-4 split on a secondary issue in the case). The plaintiffs are still allowed to sue in individual lawsuits alleging discrimination and prove it in time-honored fashion, but they cannot tie all whatever-million female employees of Walmart to their tail. Such an act would not only have probably destroyed Walmart (which many on the left would have considered a feature rather than a bug), but also had a chilling effect on many other businesses.
SCOTUS has just ruined the future of the next John Edwards.
Ann Althouse (Prof. Law, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison) has an interesting interpretation on this from back in March:
“So… the thing that makes a million individuals the same is that they… are different.”
http://althouse.blogspot.com/
If America were a tree, democrat/liberals would be the branches demanding the oppressive and oversized trunk be cut away.
Speaking as someone who tried to stop Walmart from destroying George Washington’s childhood home in Falmouth, Virginia it is a shame that the lawsuit did not destroy Walmart. It is probably one of the most un-ehtical businesses in existence since the fail of the robber barons.
The fact that I am not writing this from jail is proof that they can be stopped or at least re-directed. If they had built in the Falmouth-Fredericksburg location, I, with a couple of hundred others, would have burned the place down, and probably ended up enjoying a state paid vacation as a result.
Bob,
The problem is that Walmart would not be the only business or organization affected. The class action trial lawyers would have had a field day. They know how to manipulate our oprahfied citizens.
Wal-Mart has long been a target of union types, and therefore hard-left activists, who’ve hit a rough patch in the last few months.
I like Walmart.
I have two homes, both near small towns. If Walmart didn’t have stores in those towns, I’d have to make LONG drives to get everyday items that I need.
My take is that they offer jobs to many who couldn’t otherwise get decent jobs and offer promotion opportunities for even better jobs to many employees who may not have college degrees.
I consider Walmart to be my advocate in hammering down prices with Chinese and other developing countries’ goods. As long as we are gonna trade with them (and we should), we should get the best prices.
Of course, there are locales in which Walmart shouldn’t put stores but that holds for Home Depot, Lowes, Walgreen, and even Saks Fifth Avenue too.
Bob says: ‘it is a shame that the lawsuit did not destroy Walmart. It is probably one of the most un-ehtical (sic) businesses in existence since the fail (sic) of the robber barons.’
Bob is clearly anti-change. He is likely involved in the Oppose Climate Change movement. He probably resents Henry Ford for putting the transport-by-horse ‘community’ out of business, and Big Pharma for putting quack nostrums makers out of business. He likely has a six-figure income and can afford to shop as if price doesn’t matter.
Evolution is Change. Is he opposed to the concept of evolution? In anything?
Unions better hope places like walmart stay around. What good is a union pay and benefits if everybody participated? All that would do is make fifty thousand dollars the new poverty level for a single person.
Unions are a ponzi scheme and are intended for a select few to have advantage through threat of sabatogue to business and commerce over the non union majority.
John Stossel just ran a great show on Saturday about what class action law suits are costing this country. He focused especially on personal injury suits and discrimination suits. We are the only developed country in the world that has a contingency legal fee system that makes pursuing large, class-action civil actions extremely profitable. In countries where the loser pays, civil suits are not undertaken on frivolous or questionable cases because there is a good chance that no money will be awarded and the winner’s court costs must be paid. In addition, judges in those countries refuse to hear cases unless they are serious.
We are a tort happy nation and it is hurting our economy, our justice system, costing taxpayers dearly, and provides a legal but amoral case for suing in hopes of hitting the lottery. We need tort reform of all civil actions not just medical malpractice.
I was a member of ALPA, the airline pilots union, for 25 years. It was an open shop. The national was run by real union members and not professional union organizers. Unions can do good things for employees in a job where everyone is doing much the same work and there are issues of scheduling, work hours, pay, benefits, safety, and more to be negotiated. Problems arise when the union forgets that without a successful company, there is no job. But the union’s members can lose sight of that fact when the managements try to treat them like “mushrooms.” (Keep them in the dark and feed them a load of s**t.) Frank Lorenzo (CEO of Texas Air, Continental, & eventually Eastern) made it his life’s work to destroy the unions at the airlines he gained control of. He succeeded, but destroyed Eastern and nearly collapsed Continental before he was driven from the industry. Unions can do good things but they should be open shop and run by the members, not professionals. Also, there needs to be a kind of social compact between management and labor. They both need each other and they both need a successful company.
However, in the public sector, the issue of financial success hinges on government being able to tax enough revenue to fulfill the contracts. (Which depends, in turn, on a robust, healthy economy.) We are now seeing the results of over promising by government and excessive greed by the public sector unions. I think those unions should be strictly open shop and restricted to bargaining on only working conditions, scheduling, etc. but not wages or benefits. It’s too easy for elected officials to cave to hard bargaining professional union “goons.” For proof see Cahleeforneeah. My two cents on the union issue.
Don Carlos since when is opposing bad zoning for or against change? I’m surprised no one has commented on how Wal-Mart’s business practices are genuinely scandalous. There have been books and articles on just how bad. Several communities have tried to keep them out because of their deleterious effects on local businesses and tax bases, among other reasons. I once met a former Wal-Mart manger who calculated that she worked a 100 hour week and got paid for forty.
Our argument with Wal-Mart in Fredericksburg is that they deliberately wanted to build a store across the river from the old part of town, the pre-Civil War part. I guess they thought it would be a good business location, the tourists would visit the historical sites and see a Wal-Mart. Public opposition was led by the wife of a Republican delegate. Wal-Mart responded with a campaign of LIES. And I mean lies. It was quite an education.
BTW, evolution is also characterized by remarkable cases of stasis and punctuated equilibrium. And my six-figure salary hasn’t ruined my appreciation of the little people and their quaint ways. In fact I choose to live hand to mouth and paycheck to paycheck rather than simply take one of the yachts on another world wide cruise. You know how tedious those can get.
“”Wal-Mart responded with a campaign of LIES.””
I don’t doubt walmart has some less than honorable lawyers on their team. But we can probably thank the flawed system J.J. described for making that a neccessity. Rest assured they have had to do battle against equally less than honorable opponents.
“Little people and their ‘quaint’ ways”?
Someone living hand to mouth on a six figure income must be living large…even in Virginia.
J.J.,
I have the feeling that many of the unions in Germany work a bit more like the airlines union you described. Unions are represented on the company board and therefore have to take the entire operation into account, not just benefits. It probably also helps that many employees have been trained through apprenticeships and feel a commitment to what they do. I would assume that pilots would have a similar interest when airline spending is directed toward safety expenditures rather than new benefits. Also, since many small engineering and manufacturing firms send their workers out to install and service their products, these ordinary workers gain a feel for the competition and other problems that the company as a whole faces. This seems to work well for what is called the Mittelstand. Another possible factor is that inheritance taxes for privately owned companies are waived after a period of years of continuous operation, keeping the owners more involved in the long-term success of the company and more involved with the employees. I don’t reallly have a good feel for the entire unionization system here, so take these as just superficial impressions.
One downside of this is that Germany companies tend to overengineer mass consumer products to the point that an average housewife sometimes says, WTF, I don’t need all this baloney.
Pingback:Walmart and the Future of Class-Action Lawsuits « Dialogic Magazine
Texexec the reference to “my six figure salary” was literary license, i.e. wishful thinking, delusion, insane thoughts and the like.
Bob from Virginia:
OK…understood. And FWIW, I think y’all did the right thing in opposing Walmart’s putting that store in that particular place in your area. I just don’t think Walmart is as evil as you seem to and I do know they have provided a valuable service to me.
Walmart wanted to come to our town. They were opposed by a coalition of various groups, and blocked.
Clever souls that they are, they found a loophole by straddling the town/county boundary. They built a tasteful building that blends pretty well with the terrain. Ordinary citizens now love them.
Wife and I didn’t want them; now we shop there consistently. Why? Because they offer quality products at very competitive prices. Sure, we have some go-to local establishments, such as our Optician. But frankly, we would miss Walmart if they were not here.
Anyway the suit was junk. I heard one liberal blather about the percentage of women on the payroll vs the number in management. Typical mindless argument that sounds valid to if you don’t think to deeply. But, no analysis of relative education; time in service; motivations; etc. between women employees and male managers. Not to mention that Walmart’s corporate policies cannot be faulted.