The Supreme Court sides with Wal-Mart [Salon]

Discussion in 'User Submitted News' started by MEGAMANTROTSKY, Jun 22, 2011.

  1. MEGAMANTROTSKY
    OP

    Member MEGAMANTROTSKY GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Country:
    United States
    [​IMG]

    The full article can be found in the spoiler tags below.

    Warning: Spoilers inside!
    Source: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/06/...mart/index.html
    The official text of the Supreme Court decision can be read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
    I didn't know this until now, but the class action actually has a homepage: http://www.walmartclass.com/public_home.html
     
  2. Sterling

    Member Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,023
    Location:
    Texas
    Country:
    United States
    It seems like these sorts of cases are base upon the individual. If the general management is discriminating then you take it up higher. I do not think this is a company wide problem. You work at a minimum wage job, expect to be paid minimum wage. Walmart do indeed give good pay raises, but you have to hit your marks. I can also see where management was going with the, "He has a family argument", but that is unfair and it should have been escalated within the company.

    Also, inb4catboy.
     
  3. MEGAMANTROTSKY
    OP

    Member MEGAMANTROTSKY GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Country:
    United States
    Basing all of this "upon the individual" is precisely what Wal-Mart wants. The Court did not even deny that sexual discrimination took place, but that the vast size of the enterprise being sued damned the class opposition from the outset. The Court majority believed that each case should be confined to the particular store it occurred at. Breaking up the class action into arbitration would disallow any broader action against the company itself. As Ginsburg said in her dissenting opinion: "even if individual filings were successful, they would not challenge the pervading discrimination pointed to in the Dukes case." As for those those pay raises, the problem is that they are entirely subjective and left up to the managers alone. The Supreme Court has again taken the side of big business against the working class.

    The ruling is a huge blow to all working people looking to seek restitution against the rapacious policies of their employers.
     
  4. Sterling

    Member Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,023
    Location:
    Texas
    Country:
    United States
    I understand that. I don't think that the entire company was involved. It was on case by case basis. When word started to get out, everybody began to get up in arms. Things like this need to be escalated within the company to get the offender removed, or demoted. Be glad that walmart still allows you to take them to court. When I worked at Wendys, I had to sign my right to sue them away to continue to work for them. I had to sign my rights, my children's rights, and their children's right. I had to go through a mediator to work out things. Total Bullshit.
     
  5. MEGAMANTROTSKY
    OP

    Member MEGAMANTROTSKY GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Country:
    United States
    I suppose when you put it that way, I guess we should be glad they get to go to court at all. The way Wendy's treated you is despicable and wrong. You should be granted every right to take legal action against the ill treatment of your person. Even so, I can't fully agree with your earlier position. Even if the "company" of Wal-Mart (which could refer to many differing sects within that company) was not actively aiding and abetting sexual discrimination (this was essentially the crux of Justice Scalia's position), that does not immediately acquit them in this matter. The evidence strongly indicated, within the management circles, a general indifference to the plight of these working women. The only way to combat such treatment is, ultimately, a class-action lawsuit that strikes the company at the jugular. I would advise you to Google some of the witness statements if you can. Their documentation as, if I recall, quite meticulous.

    Edit: Never mind, I was thinking of something else. I haven't found the witness statements yet.
    Edit II: In absence of the plaintiff's evidence, perhaps the text of the Justice's decisions will do: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-277.pdf
     
  6. cwstjdenobs

    Member cwstjdenobs Sodomy non sapiens

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    1,757
    Location:
    Ankh-Morpork
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I know people who have worked at ASDA since before Wal-Mart bought it and according to them there is a definite, thinly veiled, culture of sexism slowly creeping in when it comes pay raises and promotions. Women have to hit higher marks for the same reward...

    Don't know if it's true, I don't even shop at supermarkets.
     
  7. Sterling

    Member Sterling GBAtemp's Silver Hero

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Messages:
    4,023
    Location:
    Texas
    Country:
    United States
    Hmm, I usually agree with you much of the time. This time though, I see the point. If indeed there is a correlation in discrimination across the company, then legal action needs to ensue. From my experiences in Wendys, the culprit was usually stripped of title, and removed. I am male, so I can't speak for the female population, but that was my experience. However, if there is no correlation, and is a case by case basis, the victims of such abuse should escalate it within their company. I will be in contact with my friends who work in the Walmart salons and get back with you.
     
  8. MEGAMANTROTSKY
    OP

    Member MEGAMANTROTSKY GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Country:
    United States
    Thanks. Anything you find out will perhaps give us more insight into all of this.
     
  9. ShadowSoldier

    Member ShadowSoldier GBAtemp Guru

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    9,383
    Country:
    Canada
    Wow, women are just getting screwed left right and center.

    First this whole thing with WalMart, and now the courts are even against them?
     
  10. GreatZimkogway

    Member GreatZimkogway Touhou Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Imoriata
    Country:
    United States
    That really sucks. It's plainly obvious that it happens...yet it got turned down.
     
  11. Slyakin

    Member Slyakin See ya suckers

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Location:
    Soviet Slyakin
    Country:
    United States
    This is what happens when something as fucking huge as Walmart gets into a lawsuit against a person. Walmart has too much money, and it can easily buy its way through the law.
     
  12. Sora de Eclaune

    Member Sora de Eclaune Baby squirrel, you's a sexy motherfucker.

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    2,785
    Location:
    123 Fake Street
    Country:
    United States
    They should have won this case. I seriously think they should have. Discrimination is a big problem.

    Except here. Here all the Mexicans and African-Americans, if they're not hired, threaten to sue on account of discrimination. So they're hired and decent people working there are fired to make space for a new employee. It's apparently a new trend. Makes it hard to get a job, it does.
     
  13. GreatZimkogway

    Member GreatZimkogway Touhou Fanatic

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2009
    Messages:
    2,140
    Location:
    Imoriata
    Country:
    United States
    Only because they make it so. On that one, it's not the companys' fault. It's that people in this country are so fucking lawsuit-crazy.
     
  14. Slyakin

    Member Slyakin See ya suckers

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    Messages:
    4,450
    Location:
    Soviet Slyakin
    Country:
    United States
    I swear, truer words have never been spoken. America will crumble with our government and economy like this.
     
  15. Foxi4

    Reporter Foxi4 On the hunt...

    pip
    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    22,732
    Location:
    Gaming Grotto
    Country:
    Poland
    And it so just happens that the 4 who disagreed are 3 women and 1 liberal. Dandy.

    *clap clap* Case closed, next time if you wanna fight, at the very least be prepared.
     
  16. MEGAMANTROTSKY
    OP

    Member MEGAMANTROTSKY GBAtemp Fan

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Messages:
    464
    Country:
    United States
    Actually, they did, by and large. You can see it for yourself by accessing the link I referenced above. Scalia and the majority simply imposed an impossible standard for them to fulfill. He basically says that the commonalities between all of the class participants must basically be uniform (not to mention the smoking gun) in order to retain merit. I admit that I am not a huge fan of feminism. But it would be entirely premature to dismiss the plaintiffs simply because you perceive a feminist agenda in the suit. These are social demands that are indicative of the plaintiffs class interests in opposition to the austerity policies being pursued by the bourgeoisie. Wal-Mart has failed to fulfill them and the women deserve to be defended, despite what identity politics arises with it.
     
  17. FAST6191

    Reporter FAST6191 Techromancer

    pip
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,737
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I am holding back on any comment on the main story for now until I can be bothered to do some more reading. I will note though that wal mart is not a franchise in the traditional sense although I have not looked into the investors side of things (not that it would change things all that much if investment went by region).

    I will say though I find the greeters quite annoying should I venture into such a place.

    Would it truly matter if it was a degree in something useful? We are always told a degree does not automatically confer a job or even a set wage for any job and given wal mart typically offers fairly low skilled jobs.

    I am not overly familiar with wage laws in the US though and UK stuff would not be of any real help here so I will have to avoid some more in depth stuff. I would not mind knowing a few more specifics about this example though; I will assume nothing so obvious as part time vs full time, hours (night being more than day), hours worked (this is not a weekly wage packet for a full vs part time) was overlooked and this was for a similar job description (I would pay my 17 year old tyre fitter more than till jockey for instance).

    Of course though if those comments were found to be truly spoken that is certainly cause for the manager to be striped up; I have seen things far less clear cut than that go though.

    "the inevitable byproduct of a strong and centralized corporate system that originated in the company’s Home Office in Bentonville, Arkansas, and permeated each of the company’s stores in the United States"

    "The decision Monday hinged not on whether Wal-Mart enacted discriminatory policies, but on whether there were sufficient grounds to treat the women as a class. Despite the plaintiffs' arguments, and the decisions in district court and the federal appeals court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Wal-Mart.

    The workers "provide no convincing proof of a company-wide discriminatory pay and promotion policy," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the court."

    I get what those quotes are trying to say but they do seem to be a failure of language.

    As for the fallout/"case law" from this I am not sure it is as huge as the source thinks; I can see no real rulings on legislation, clarifications on or alternative options for any existing case law or any of the things that traditionally comes with some of the bigger civil suits (at best lots of "in this case" type things).
     

Share This Page