• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court throws out huge discrimination suit against Wal-Mart

BDBoop said:
Supreme Court Wal-Mart: Supreme Court tosses discrimination suit against Wal-Mart - latimes.com

In a 5-4 vote, justices rule that the lawsuit, which claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against 1.5 million female workers, did not qualify as a class action.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed, because this (quote below) points to the very real possibility of systematic discrimination.

In a partial dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said there was enough evidence of systematic sex discrimination to allow the suit to proceed, though not for damages. "Women fill 70% of the hourly jobs in the retailer's stores, but make up only 33% of the management employees," she wrote. "The higher one looks in the organization, the lower the percentage of women."
Click to expand...

I'm also not surprised Scalia wrote the deciding opinion.

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.
Click to expand...

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination

His opinion in this case, ignores the statistics I quoted in Ginsberg's dissent. The numbers are very compelling.

It was disappointing that even if the suit had gone forward, the court agreed unanimously that they couldn't seek monetary damages, but it still would have been worth it to end inequities in Walmart's employment policies.
 
I agree, Gina. I don't shop there now, and now I will shop there never.
 
BDBoop said:
I agree, Gina. I don't shop there now, and now I will shop there never.
Click to expand...

I don't either either BD and I haven't for more than a decade. Walmart's employment and benefit policies have been suspect for a very long time. I choose not to support the company with my dollars for that reason and the effect of the stores on small, local economies.
 
This is BS...
This should of been heard.
One of the my many reasons i dont shop at walmart.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
This is BS...
This should of been heard.
One of the my many reasons i dont shop at walmart.
Click to expand...

They'll never go out of business though. :( Oh well. We do what we can.
 
BDBoop said:
Supreme Court Wal-Mart: Supreme Court tosses discrimination suit against Wal-Mart - latimes.com

In a 5-4 vote, justices rule that the lawsuit, which claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated against 1.5 million female workers, did not qualify as a class action.
Click to expand...

That's one big huge YAY! from Maggie. Hope the attorneys all worked on contingency. They thought they had a biiig payday. That ruling was huge in that precedent would've been set for future class actions of this kind. For a change, the good guys won.

Note that individual suits can be filed. And isn't that the way it should be? Each on its own merits.
 
MaggieD said:
That's one big huge YAY! from Maggie. Hope the attorneys all worked on contingency. They thought they had a biiig payday. That ruling was huge in that precedent would've been set for future class actions of this kind. For a change, the good guys won.

Note that individual suits can be filed. And isn't that the way it should be? Each on its own merits.
Click to expand...

But how can you take money from evil rich people and properly redistribute the wealth without big class action lawsuits??

Think of the lawyers Maggie, they won't be able to buy those 4th homes and second yachts! You are sooo cruel.
 
MaggieD said:
That's one big huge YAY! from Maggie. Hope the attorneys all worked on contingency. They thought they had a biiig payday. That ruling was huge in that precedent would've been set for future class actions of this kind. For a change, the good guys won.

Note that individual suits can be filed. And isn't that the way it should be? Each on its own merits.
Click to expand...

Yes, they can, but it shouldn't be, not with the statistics as they were noted by Justice Ginsberg. It's more than a store here and there. Women make up 70% of the hourly work force, but only 33% of management? Something doesn't add up here.
 
Gina said:
Yes, they can, but it shouldn't be, not with the statistics as they were noted by Justice Ginsberg. It's more than a store here and there. Women make up 70% of the hourly work force, but only 33% of management? Something doesn't add up here.
Click to expand...

Before you make a decision, how about more facts? What are we going to have now? Affirmative action for women on a class action basis? No. How about on the merits of the individual? How about ten women or a hundred women win individual suits and then look at the stats?

The suit began nearly 10 years ago when it was originally filed on behalf of employee Betty Dukes and five of her co-workers. The women claimed they had been passed over for promotions and paid less than male employees.
Click to expand...

Where's that trial? Oh, too small a payday for the attorneys. How about one step at a time?
 
ok...

Slow Progress for Women in Management - The Juggle - WSJ
A new government report found that women have made few inroads into management positions over the past decade and still face a persistent pay gap with their male counterparts. The findings, released today by the Government Accountability Office, and reported in the New York Times, showed that in 2007, the latest data available, women accounted for about 40% of managers in the U.S. work force. That number is up just slightly from 2000, when women held 39% of management positions
Click to expand...

Ok. WalMart is at 33%, national average in 2007 (last year data was available) was 40%. They need to catch up som, certainly. But I'd be willing to bet there are other huge corporations with a worse number. Where are those lawsuits?
 
Gina said:
Yes, they can, but it shouldn't be, not with the statistics as they were noted by Justice Ginsberg. It's more than a store here and there. Women make up 70% of the hourly work force, but only 33% of management? Something doesn't add up here.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't but the sky is green in other worlds.

Please clean out your email box. ;)
 
BDBoop said:
No, it doesn't but the sky is green in other worlds.

Please clean out your email box. ;)
Click to expand...

Done! *blush* I keep a messy in box. :)
 
Gina said:
Yes, they can, but it shouldn't be, not with the statistics as they were noted by Justice Ginsberg. It's more than a store here and there. Women make up 70% of the hourly work force, but only 33% of management? Something doesn't add up here.
Click to expand...

Yes, women can't manage ****, everyone knows this.


OR, women with managerial experience are choosing other places to apply too. Numbers by themselves don't mean diddly squat. You have to prove that gender is a deciding factor.
 
Edward's Court continues to side with corporations. No shocker here.

4295117449_61cebba7cf_o.jpg
 
I'm still scratching my head over Justice Scalia's commentary on discrimination as "required" or "prohibited" under the Constitution. I know the 15th and 19th Amendments are about voting rights, but my goodness!

Justice Scalia in his deciding opinion:

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.
Click to expand...

Rephrased, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

19th Amendment
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Click to expand...

There's your Constitutional basis for non-discrimination against the sexes right there!!
 
Last edited:
Objective Voice said:
I'm still scratching my head over Justice Scalia's commentary on discrimination as "required" or "prohibited" under the Constitution. I know the 15th and 19th Amendments are about voting rights, but my goodness!

19th Amendment



There's your Constitutional basis for non-discrimination against the sexes right there!!
Click to expand...

I found his comments very discomforting. I know he was asked a specific question, but I'm very troubled that he finds no protection for women in the constitution. Even if, as you are saying, there is it is in another amendment. He should have mentioned that.
 
Gina,

Exactly! As soon as I read that quote my first thought was, "Really? The Constititution says nothing about non-discrimation based on sex?" I didn't even have to do search on that one to know the man was lying through his teeth!
 
Objective Voice said:
I'm still scratching my head over Justice Scalia's commentary on discrimination as "required" or "prohibited" under the Constitution. I know the 15th and 19th Amendments are about voting rights, but my goodness!

Justice Scalia in his deciding opinion:



Rephrased, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex.

19th Amendment


There's your Constitutional basis for non-discrimination against the sexes right there!!
Click to expand...

Wow... what a disgusting opinion by a right leaning court...

Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that.
Click to expand...

So the Constitution doesn't prohibit discrimination? Seriously? Wow... the opinion is disturbing on multiple levels and just goes along with the "women as property" meme that seems to be pervading the right-wing these days.

I noticed that all the women justices cast dissenting opinions. I wonder how much this corporate friendly decision cost the Koch Brothers?
 
Last edited:
Scalia is dangerous. More so because he is twins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom