The victimization of UNDERPAID with lack of opportunity based on gender is secured by this decision.
...The ruling will make it harder to get a court to approve or certify a class of plaintiffs who want to sue as a group, says Brian Fitzpatrick, an associate professor of law at Vanderbilt whose research includes class action litigation and federal law....
Even though the nine Justices agreed on the general premise that the 'class' did not meet the standard set by the citation of the plaintiffs, there were four Justices that saw a problem with the complete elimination of the 'class of women' bringing suit against the global economy destroyer.
...The court did divide 5 to 4 in deciding (click here) that the three plaintiffs in the case could not, under any circumstances, fairly represent the experiences of more than 1.5 million women across the company. According to the majority, women "held a multitude of different jobs, at different levels of Wal-Mart's hierarchy, for variable lengths of time, in 3,400 stores, sprinkled across 50 states, with a kaleidoscope of supervisors (male and female)." Therefore, this case presented exactly the opposite of a common policy that affected everyone the same way, precluding class treatment.
Ginsburg's partial dissent disagreed with one section of the majority's opinion, arguing that plaintiffs should have been given another chance to try to certify a class under stricter standards, but notably did not find that the plaintiffs could meet those standards, let alone that the majority's approach would jeopardize civil rights. And while dissenting opinions often call for congressional action, Ginsburg did not do so here....
The 'take home message' to most people I spoke with regarding this decision was that each woman was going to have to secure an attorney and sue the lousy company. I don't believe that is necessarily the case, but, if that is the message then women will continue to be the victim of their gender.
For one person with the wages that are paid at Walmart to sue the company, they would have to have an income. If a person/woman in this case sued their employer they would be fired, unless they were represented by a union. Even then what would occur would be 'fault finding' by the employer until the 'employee file' was substantial enough to terminate their employment even to the standard held by unions of their members. Without an income, the idea a person could sustain a lawsuit against any corporation is hideous.
The decision is worrisome when another case during 'the Bush era' is noted.
There will be no single class action lawsuit against Merck's Vioxx, (click here) a federal judge has ruled. But U.S. District Court Judge Eldon Fallon left open the possibility that thousands of individual lawsuits against the pharmaceutical giant may be lumped into a series of class actions....
What then occurred was a number of individual lawsuits taken on by attorneys that handle medical lawsuits. It was better for the lawyers, but, the plaintiffs were not always found to be dead or in poor health because of Vioxx. Every case that was decided in any court in the land made headlines as a 'new way' to litigate class action for the benefit of companies.
To say there is an attack in the USA courts against class action lawsuits is an understatement. The reason that would seem to be beneficial to the citizen is that decisions would benefit an individual more than a class action might. However, the inability of plaintiffs to come together to file a single lawsuit and reduce their litigation costs only victimizes the innocent and prevents a real democracy from going forward with justice.
How does that interpret in civil justice? It is concluded by many it is an oppression of the masses in a way that allows businesses to operate outside the laws that insure civil rights to all.
This continued assault is a Middle Class issue and eliminating the poor and middle class would definately benefit the plutocracy.
