Wal-Mart 1, Women 0
The US Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against a group that sued Wal-Mart over alleged sex discrimination in matters of pay and promotion in the name of up to 15 million women who worked there and at Sam's Club since 1998 Monday's decision reversed a California U Court of Appeals decision (more).
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously against a group that sued Wal-Mart over alleged sex discrimination in matters of pay and promotion in the name of up to 1.5 million women who worked there and at Sam’s Club since 1998. Monday’s decision reversed a California U.S. Court of Appeals decision.
The new ruling — which saved the giant retailer from potentially billions of dollars in damages — means that the lawsuit cannot proceed under class-action status and that each of the women involved must pursue their own claims. In being unable to sue as a unified bloc, complainants are likely to have a much more difficult time making their cases. The decision is expected to set a precedent that could have a dampening effect on similar class-action lawsuits. –ARK
WAIT BEFORE YOU GO...The New York Times:
The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.
The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
This year, the ground feels uncertain — facts are buried and those in power are working to keep them hidden. Now more than ever, independent journalism must go beneath the surface.
At Truthdig, we don’t just report what's happening — we investigate how and why. We follow the threads others leave behind and uncover the forces shaping our future.
Your tax-deductible donation fuels journalism that asks harder questions and digs where others won’t.
Don’t settle for surface-level coverage.
Unearth what matters. Help dig deeper.
Donate now.
Courts & Law
If you want to deepen your understanding of the differences between “originalism” and “living constitutionalism” as competing theories of constitutional law and interpretation, there’s no better place to begin than with the 2006 debate between the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and the recently retired liberal Justice Stephen Breyer.
A new Second Amendment appeal could radically expand the scope of District of Columbia v. Heller, handicapping Congress for years to come.
The implications of Justice Thomas’ tenure on the nation’s top court extend far beyond his own career and legacy.
And with Neil Gorsuch and now Brett Kavanaugh in tow, the president is well on his way achieving his objective.
The confirmation of President Trump's nominee would mark the culmination of a right-wing legal counterrevolution that has been decades in the making.
The president has chosen a candidate who poses a great threat to progressive values and causes—and one who might shield him from Mueller.
You need to be a supporter to comment.
There are currently no responses to this article.
Be the first to respond.