The Supreme Court just ruled unanimously in favor of Wal-Mart, blocking a sex-discrimination class-action suit from proceeding. This is good news for anyone concerned about our already-suffering economy, since a decision to allow this case to continue would have fundamentally changed the definition of what constitutes a class for litigation purposes and opened the flood gates for other class-action suits, which distract businesses from their missions and drain resources away from productive uses, such as hiring workers.
As I’ve written before, statistics can be misleading and comparing the wages of male workers to female workers shouldn’t be used as proof of discrimination. Individual employees who believe they’ve been treated unfairly can still have their day in court, but this class-action suit is history, as it should be.
"Individual employees who believe they’ve been treated unfairly can still have their day in court"
Individual employees who believe they’ve been treated unfairly can always resign.
I would be OK with anti-discrimination laws if they worked both ways. If an employee resigns, say, because a manager of a different race was appointed over him, could the company sue on the grounds that the only reason the employee resigned was that they were racist? Companies suffer damage when employees quit. Projects are interrupted and delayed, headhunters fees are incurred, and replacement training is expensive. Perhaps the departed employee should be sued to recover these damages.
Good for Wal-Mart. They are a great American company. if they truly practice gender discrimination, they will have alienated half the America population.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood call for Walmart!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood call by the supreme court.
Maybe there's hope yet !
From the Court's opinion: "Wal-Mart has no testing procedure or other companywide evaluation method that can be charged with bias. The whole point of permitting discretionary decisionmaking is to avoid evaluating employees under a common standard."
So the way for businesses to avoid accountability is to make their promotion policies as subjective and inscrutable as possible? That's going to work out great.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI love the sarcastic "that's going to work out great"! Well, it certainly HAS worked out great, and will continue to do so thanks to the Supreme Court's decision. If you can't get a Sotomayor or Kagan to dissent, you'd better face the fact that your argument has no merit.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExcept for the small detail that Wal-Mart stock (yes, including dividends) has underperformed a typical bank certificate of deposit over the last 10 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBusinesses should be given a wide berth as to who they hire and fire, promote and de-mote. Unless there is a weapon sticking in your back, you can just walk out the door and not come back if you have a problem with how you are treated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse'Discretionary' is in no way a synonym for 'subjective'. Each store and location is different, and the specific skills that might be needed from managers will vary. Why can't you focus on what all NINE members of the court said; that there was no pattern of corporate bias here....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy would you consider the exercise of discretion by a Wal-Mart manager to promote the employee he or she believes is best suited for that promotion to be "subjective and inscrutable?" People who test well often perform poorly and vice versa. Think Barack Obama.
I've worked for a lot of years in different businesses and never once took a test before being promoted. In fact, the only jobs I can think of that require such testing are police officers and fire fighters. Affirmative action advocates oppose an individual evaluation process, as do unions. If given the choice, I prefer a promotion policy based on manager discretion to one based on skin color, gender, ethnic background or tenure.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, freedom would work out great. Sadly, even after this case, you still get a vote about whom other people should employ.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo, um, WHEN in the annals of human existence did it become PURELY OBJECTIVE as to which employees to promote?
I cannot think of ONE private sector individual who earned a promotion who took a test to earn it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's not the question. The question is why the Supreme Court feels entitled to treat a transparent, consistent system with more suspicion than one that's subjective and inscrutable.
It should be the company's choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot unanimous. That was the AEP opinion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The Supreme Court just ruled unanimously in favor of Wal-Mart, blocking a sex-discrimination class-action suit from proceeding." This is absolutely true. The 5-4 part was on a lesser matter than the primary issue here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat's an average Wal-Mart worker earn, benefits included? Can two full-time Wal-Mart workers raise a family on their combined earnings/benefits?
I know, I know, this has nothing to do with the decision, with which I have no quarrel.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf they can't afford a family, they should either educate themselves so that they can get better jobs, or not have a family.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen why bring it up? Surely you had a purpose. If it was idle curiosity, Google/Bing/Etc. are better places to check.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMikeB:
Your point, obviously, was to chastise WalMart for not paying enough to its workers.
But I'll take your bait, and throw it back into the water for you:
"How much do public defenders make in upstate NY, with benefits? If two public defenders raise a family together, is it enough to live on?"
Answer -- NO!
Care to sue NYS, Mikey?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBut you're overlooking the important social function that Walmart serves in that regard MikeB...it is the fact that you can not (and therefore should not) try to raise a family by working at Walmart. And, if that is what you want to do, find a job that will allow you to do so. It is a mutually reinforcing dynamic (in a perfect world without liberals, Democrats, leftists, progressives, whatever term du jour you prefer) that shapes economic decision-making. Get it?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, the 5-4 decision (Part II) is the most important part in terms of setting precedent. Part III, which is unanimous, is small potatoes. For laypersons (including especially the media) interpreting SCOTUS decisions, the critical question should ALWAYS be which issues involved a split vote.
Essentially, Part II resists the trees to see the forest. The members of the class did not present a common issue of fact or law apart from the facts of their sex and their employment with Wal-Mart (which is to say, no common fact involving an injury). Kudos to the majority for calling out this trial lawyer boondoggle for the farce it was. When lawyers represent a class of people (as opposed to individual clients), they only represent themselves.
Class action lawsuits are somewhat useful if carefully limited--if not so limited, they present too much opportunity for abuse. Too bad the Obaminable appointees to SCOTUS (Wise Latina and Clueless Kagan) have decided to march in lockstep with the tyrannical wing of the Court.
If there were ever any doubt how this case would go, I can give you two words: Ninth Circus.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse