..."Help me, (click title to entry - thank you) if you can, with this. Let’s - let’s suppose that experts’ testimony, sociologists and so forth, establish that in industry generally and in retail industry generally, women still are discriminated against by a mathematical factor of X. You have a company that has a very specific policy against discrimination, and you look at their — the way their employees are treatment — are treated, and you find a disparity by that same mathematical factor X, does that give you a cause of action?"...
Let's see if I get this right. An entire industry discriminates against women so Walmart is not culpable. Is that what the Justices Scalia and Kennedy are saying? That is pathetic and is definately pandering to the Plutocracy.
The other questions were "What policy in particular exists that was violeated?"
Hah, what?
I do believe there DOES NOT HAVE TO BE any policies in particular IN PLACE when violations of civil rights happens. Perhaps the Justices have forgotten that there are FEDERAL anti-discrimination laws the industry is suppose to adhere to. If they don't want to write a policy OR if they have written a policy but their 'management' does not adhere to it, or the policy is vague or weak or 'can' misdirect decision makers THAT COUNTS
The question in discimination cases is simple. Real simple. Did it happen? Women involved in the employment at Wal-mart state it happened and they state it happened in more than one instance. I have a real difficult time believing AN ENTIRE CASE OF WOMEN were confused about that.
After the fact, DOESN'T COUNT !
PR campaigns to BRING an entire global community to believe they DON'T discriminate with women all over computer and television screens, including those of minorities that are grateful for their jobs for the home they purchased.
The question is not that she worked hard enough and long enough to purchase a home, it is wether she worked TOO LONG and TOO HARD to purchase her home.
As to whether the women want salaries they were entited or policy changes or both, you mean to tell me the Justices can't hand down a decision based on the facts and award monies and demands on the company to correct wayward policies BASED ON FEDERAL STATUES ?
I heard that Justice is Blind, but, no one told me it was STUPID.
Not every aspect of the words a judge speaks or the decisons a judge makes HAS TO BE WRITTEN into the proceedings of a case by the defendant or prosecution.
Like, what hell is going on in ? The Roberts Court ?
