Largest Sex Discrimination Lawsuit in History Moves Forward - The Orange Mane

Bronco_Beerslug · 02-07-2007, 08:11 AM

Seems their new "image" campaign isn't getting off to a very good start.

-------------------------------------------------------
Court Approves Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: February 7, 2007

Wal-Mart’s efforts to block the nation’s largest sex discrimination lawsuit suffered a big setback yesterday when a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the case should proceed as a class action.

In a 2-to-1 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Wal-Mart’s argument that the lawsuit, which involves at least 1.5 million current and former women employees, was too unwieldy to handle in a single case.

Legal specialists said the ruling would increase pressure on Wal-Mart Stores to settle the case, in which the retailer is accused of discrimination in pay and promotions. Wal-Mart executives said they would appeal, voicing confidence that the decision would be overturned.

The court ruled yesterday that the lawsuit should proceed as a class action — the largest such civil rights case in history — because it raised common questions of law and fact, because the six named plaintiffs were typical of the class and because there were so many women that it was impractical to handle the matter in individual cases.

The majority wrote, “Plaintiffs’ expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiffs’ contention that female employees nationwide were subject to a common pattern and practice of discrimination.”

Wal-Mart’s lead lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said that yesterday’s decision was not based on the merits of the case.

“Wal-Mart has a strong antidiscrimination policy,” he said.

Arguing that the ruling contained factual and legal errors, Mr. Boutrous said Wal-Mart would ask the three-judge panel to reconsider the case and would also ask a full panel of 15 Ninth Circuit judges to consider it.

Mr. Boutrous asserted that yesterday’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court rulings and other Circuit Court rulings.

“We are optimistic about the chances of getting further review,” Mr. Boutrous said. He asserted that the named plaintiffs were not typical of the class and that the case involved no common questions of law or fact.

He pointed to other appeals of court rulings that rejected class-action status involving thousands of plaintiffs, because such cases could prevent individual hearings to determine liability.

In the majority ruling, Judges Harry Pregerson and Michael Daly Hawkins wrote that due process does not require individualized hearings to determine damages.

A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Joseph Sellers, hailed yesterday’s decision. “This ruling confirms that no company, no matter how big, is exempt from the civil rights law, no matter what Wal-Mart claimed,” he said.
CONT.

alkemical · 02-07-2007, 08:48 AM

I watched the wal*mart movie: "High cost of low prices" - and it was interesting.

Dudeskey · 02-07-2007, 01:23 PM

This is good news... DOWN WITH WAL MART!!!

TailgateNut · 02-07-2007, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urinal_Cake

This is good news... DOWN WITH WAL MART!!!

Break out the pitchforks and torches!

Dudeskey · 02-07-2007, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Break out the pitchforks and torches!

TailgateNut · 02-07-2007, 03:47 PM

Why R U Laughing. I'm serious. I've already filled the tiki torch, just haven't found a pitchfork.

No kidding, my wife shops at THAT PLACE every now and then. A team of clydesdales could'nt drag me in there. Too much CHEAP ****!

Dudeskey · 02-07-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TailgateNut

Why R U Laughing. I'm serious. I've already filled the tiki torch, just haven't found a pitchfork.

No kidding, my wife shops at THAT PLACE every now and then. A team of clydesdales could'nt drag me in there. Too much CHEAP ****!

Okay, I'm done laughing... seriously, I convinced my wife to stop grocery shopping there... Impulse buying dropped significantly

yavoon · 02-07-2007, 05:19 PM

haha walmart has to fight in the ninth circuit? they're ****ed.

spdirty · 02-07-2007, 05:53 PM

Guess they need my help. Ill go donate $250 when it comes grocery shopping time.

02-07-2007, 08:11 AM	#1
Bronco_Beerslug Angling in the Deep Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Texas Riviera, Southern Mountains Posts: 24,281	Largest Sex Discrimination Lawsuit in History Moves Forward Seems their new "image" campaign isn't getting off to a very good start. ------------------------------------------------------- Court Approves Class-Action Suit Against Wal-Mart By STEVEN GREENHOUSE Published: February 7, 2007 Wal-Mart’s efforts to block the nation’s largest sex discrimination lawsuit suffered a big setback yesterday when a federal appeals court in San Francisco ruled that the case should proceed as a class action. In a 2-to-1 ruling, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected Wal-Mart’s argument that the lawsuit, which involves at least 1.5 million current and former women employees, was too unwieldy to handle in a single case. Legal specialists said the ruling would increase pressure on Wal-Mart Stores to settle the case, in which the retailer is accused of discrimination in pay and promotions. Wal-Mart executives said they would appeal, voicing confidence that the decision would be overturned. The court ruled yesterday that the lawsuit should proceed as a class action — the largest such civil rights case in history — because it raised common questions of law and fact, because the six named plaintiffs were typical of the class and because there were so many women that it was impractical to handle the matter in individual cases. The majority wrote, “Plaintiffs’ expert opinions, factual evidence, statistical evidence, and anecdotal evidence present significant proof of a corporate policy of discrimination and support plaintiffs’ contention that female employees nationwide were subject to a common pattern and practice of discrimination.” Wal-Mart’s lead lawyer, Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., said that yesterday’s decision was not based on the merits of the case. “Wal-Mart has a strong antidiscrimination policy,” he said. Arguing that the ruling contained factual and legal errors, Mr. Boutrous said Wal-Mart would ask the three-judge panel to reconsider the case and would also ask a full panel of 15 Ninth Circuit judges to consider it. Mr. Boutrous asserted that yesterday’s decision conflicts with Supreme Court rulings and other Circuit Court rulings. “We are optimistic about the chances of getting further review,” Mr. Boutrous said. He asserted that the named plaintiffs were not typical of the class and that the case involved no common questions of law or fact. He pointed to other appeals of court rulings that rejected class-action status involving thousands of plaintiffs, because such cases could prevent individual hearings to determine liability. In the majority ruling, Judges Harry Pregerson and Michael Daly Hawkins wrote that due process does not require individualized hearings to determine damages. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Joseph Sellers, hailed yesterday’s decision. “This ruling confirms that no company, no matter how big, is exempt from the civil rights law, no matter what Wal-Mart claimed,” he said. CONT.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-07-2007, 08:48 AM	#2
alkemical Guerrilla Ontologist rorrim\|mirror Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Future Posts: 42,691 Adopt-a-Bronco: Prima Materia	I watched the wal*mart movie: "High cost of low prices" - and it was interesting.

02-07-2007, 01:23 PM	#3
Dudeskey Ring of Famer This space for rent Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Colorado Springs, CO Posts: 4,314	This is good news... DOWN WITH WAL MART!!!

02-07-2007, 03:47 PM	#6
TailgateNut Bleedin' orange! .......as much as tebonites Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mile High Posts: 20,018 Adopt-a-Bronco: Howard Griffith	Why R U Laughing. I'm serious. I've already filled the tiki torch, just haven't found a pitchfork. No kidding, my wife shops at THAT PLACE every now and then. A team of clydesdales could'nt drag me in there. Too much CHEAP ****!

02-07-2007, 05:19 PM	#8
yavoon Ring of Famer Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 10,260	haha walmart has to fight in the ninth circuit? they're ****ed.

02-07-2007, 05:53 PM	#9
spdirty Ring of Famer Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bailey Posts: 13,883 Adopt-a-Bronco: Koppen	Guess they need my help. Ill go donate $250 when it comes grocery shopping time.