Supreme Court limits Wal-Mart sex bias case

[wayneflorida 0]

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

[rushmc 23]

ACORN lost too

As well as states going after greenhouse gas emissions

A good day in the courts I think


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_acorn_lawsuit

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_climate_change

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

Part II of the opinion was dissented - that is whether the commonality of claims is met. So there was unanimity in some aspects but disent in one point.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

From article:
By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there too many women in too many jobs to wrap into one lawsuit.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

From article:
By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there too many women in too many jobs to wrap into one lawsuit.

And AP had the quote posted

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

Part II of the opinion was dissented - that is whether the commonality of claims is met. So there was unanimity in some aspects but disent in one point.

Thanks

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

By the way, why did you post 5 to 4?

Quote

The court ruled unanimously Monday that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores cannot proceed as a class action, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco

Part II of the opinion was dissented - that is whether the commonality of claims is met. So there was unanimity in some aspects but disent in one point.

Ok, the link he posted is blocked where I am at

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there too many women in too many jobs to wrap into one lawsuit.

What that means is that there was nothing in common amongst all the women plaintiffs that indicates a corporate bias against women in general, and therefore it does not fit the requirements for a class-action suit. The women are still free to pursue their cases individually.

[quade 4]

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

Of the Company, By the Company and For the Company.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

Of the Company, By the Company and For the Company.

The shills will never see what is wrong with that.

[lawrocket 3]

The big loser here is the Plaintiffs' bar. The biggest possible money maker is the class action lawsuit. Sue Walmart. Try to force a $5 billion settlement. Take $2 billion in attorneys' fees. Leave each class member a $100 voucher for Walmart purchases.

This is a big blow to Plaintifs lawyers. I like it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

The big loser here is the Plaintiffs' bar. The biggest possible money maker is the class action lawsuit. Sue Walmart. Try to force a $5 billion settlement. Take $2 billion in attorneys' fees. Leave each class member a $100 voucher for Walmart purchases.

This is a big blow to Plaintifs lawyers. I like it.

To borrow a phrase

The shills will never see what is wrong with that.

At least those who hate corps and really dont know why they hate them

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

Of the Company, By the Company and For the Company.

The shills will never see what is wrong with that.

And the knee-jerk, unreasoning, subjective deling ideologues who do not take the time to actually analyze what happened (or even read the brief) will not point to Walmart winning unanimously on two of three sections. Instead, they'll stick to clever and manipulative slogans that have fucking nothing to do with it but will resonate with millions who hear what they want, see what they want, and believe anything that matches with those feelings while ignorning any evidence to the contrary.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

5 to 4 vote

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination

Of the Company, By the Company and For the Company.

The shills will never see what is wrong with that.

And the knee-jerk, unreasoning, subjective deling ideologues who do not take the time to actually analyze what happened (or even read the brief) will not point to Walmart winning unanimously on two of three sections. Instead, they'll stick to clever and manipulative slogans that have fucking nothing to do with it but will resonate with millions who hear what they want, see what they want, and believe anything that matches with those feelings while ignorning any evidence to the contrary.

In other words

CORPORATIONS GOOOOOOOOD... can I have some more master??

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

The big loser here is the Plaintiffs' bar. The biggest possible money maker is the class action lawsuit. Sue Walmart. Try to force a $5 billion settlement. Take $2 billion in attorneys' fees. Leave each class member a $100 voucher for Walmart purchases.

This is a big blow to Plaintifs lawyers. I like it.

You will not be invited to the next State Bar Christmas Ball. shame, shame
Oh, can it be called a Christmas Ball anymore.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

And the knee-jerk, unreasoning, subjective deling ideologues who do not take the time to actually analyze what happened (or even read the brief) will not point to Walmart winning unanimously on two of three sections. Instead, they'll stick to clever and manipulative slogans that have fucking nothing to do with it but will resonate with millions who hear what they want, see what they want, and believe anything that matches with those feelings while ignorning any evidence to the contrary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words

CORPORATIONS GOOOOOOOOD... can I have some more master??

QED

Thank you!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

And the knee-jerk, unreasoning, subjective deling ideologues who do not take the time to actually analyze what happened (or even read the brief) will not point to Walmart winning unanimously on two of three sections. Instead, they'll stick to clever and manipulative slogans that have fucking nothing to do with it but will resonate with millions who hear what they want, see what they want, and believe anything that matches with those feelings while ignorning any evidence to the contrary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In other words

CORPORATIONS GOOOOOOOOD... can I have some more master??

QED

Thank you!

MMMM Trickle MMMMMM

RollerBall anyone..???

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court said there too many women in too many jobs to wrap into one lawsuit.

What that means is that there was nothing in common amongst all the women plaintiffs that indicates a corporate bias against women in general, and therefore it does not fit the requirements for a class-action suit. The women are still free to pursue their cases individually.

I am not sure on this point, but does it actually mean the women must pursue cases individually? Or might some class still be put together that meets the definition of commonality of claims by having a slightly more restrictive class than "women?" What might such a class entail?

I understand that practically that puts a lawsuit back to square one.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[DanG 1]

An analyst on the radio yesterday that we could still see lawsuits from smaller classes of women, such as a class of Assistant Store Managers, or similar. He believed that such classes would be able to meet the commonality standard.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

An analyst on the radio yesterday that we could still see lawsuits from smaller classes of women, such as a class of Assistant Store Managers, or similar. He believed that such classes would be able to meet the commonality standard.

I agree. This is the kind of thing the court was talking about. The problem is that it means less money - which is what it really is about.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

An analyst on the radio yesterday that we could still see lawsuits from smaller classes of women, such as a class of Assistant Store Managers, or similar. He believed that such classes would be able to meet the commonality standard.

Thank you, that's what I would guess but I wasn't sure.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"