Comments on: The Danger of the Walmart Class-Action Decision

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:27:57 +0000

So what if individual plaintiffs have to file individual claims of discrimination? Wouldn’t the “shock” from repeated adverse rulings in those sorts of cases reform corporate behavior, if indeed the complainants’ claims had validity?

This was all about attorney money, pure and simple. A sleazebag class action attorney identified a wealthy target, found some alleged victims, and tried to make himself a multi-multi-millionaire. Is it any coincidence this suit was filed in the most notoriously left-leaning court in the country?

I’m sure Wal-Mart has some instances where it has discriminated. Any corporation with hundreds of thousands of employees will have a few who have gone rogue. Individual complaints will handle those and provide resolution.

This country increasingly tries to penalize success. More and more people dedicate their life to fighting over the existing pie, instead of trying to enlarge the pie.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:45:45 +0000

The problem is with the continued uphill battle faced by the little guy with few legal resources when he goes up against the big company with a huge legal department stocked with highly paid lawyers. The problem is not with the Wal Mart decision; the court was correct not to destroy the definition of “Class” in an effort to impose some measure of justice unrelated to the issue before the court.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 14:29:47 +0000

I agree this is an excellent example of how Walmart is too big, so they can’t possibly manage all their stores and their manager’s actions! Excellent point that somehow I can walk in to 90% of Walmart’s and know where to find what because they are laid out much the same. THAT they can apparently get right. The decision really hurts many people where the corporate culture dictates what happens in promotion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:38:26 +0000

Governement by the Corporation an for the corporation – the message from the Supreme court, notice the Female Supremes dissented

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:32:16 +0000

I think this is a veriation on “too big to fail”,wherein the High Court has chosen to NOT open Pandora’s Box for the litany of similar lawsuits that might have followed, if allowed. Viewed another way, it is perhaps yet another example of the courts potentially allowing violators to “escape” (still no prosecutions for the last Stock Market debacle), or, (in another example), declaring corporations to be “individuals” who can then make unlimited contributions to political campaigns. Certainly, the Court’s position will serve as an impediment to people bringing large-scale class action suits.

It appears that the protections that have been hard-won for the “little man” over the past 50 to 75 years are rapidly eroding. At the rate we are retrograding, it’s conceivable that a person in her or his 60s will licve to see a country with fewer freedoms and protections that her or his parents enjoyed…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:25:10 +0000

A very interesting article from a social engineering perspective. Unfortunately, it missed the point of the appeal from the decisioni by the Ninth Circuit, a noriously left-leaning court. It also ignores the signficance of SCOTUS decision — it was unanimous. Even Ginsburg was not persuaded by the arguments. This was a weak case from its inception. A stronger case, supported by facts and not innuendo, might have had a better chance.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:47:11 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly with this article. It is a shame that this is the reality of today. The struggle still continues…

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:18:08 +0000

They can file an EEO complaint with EEOC or a state EEO office if their state has one.