In a major victory for common sense, consumers and the national economy, SCOTUS ruled that there is no basis for a class action suit against Walmart for discrimination against women. This decision was unanimous and it rebukes the 6-5 ruling by the awful San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Supreme Court Rules for Wal-Mart in Massive Job Discrimination Lawsuit
By Bill Mears, CNN - June 20, 2011
The basic claim by greedy litigation lawyers is that since 70% of Walmart employees are female but only a third of store managers are female, that is indisputable proof of discrimination. Having proved that there was discrimination, the ambulance chasers want back pay and punitive damages on behalf of 1.6 million women. Does that make sense to anyone beyond those intent on eating the Golden Goose?
The Walmart system leaves decisions about pay and promotions to store managers but the company’s official policies bar gender bias.
"On the facts of the case," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia, the plaintiffs had to show "significant proof that Wal-Mart operated under a general policy of discrimination. That is entirely absent here. In a company of Wal-Mart's size and geographical scope, it is quite unbelievable that all managers would exercise their discretion in a common way without some common direction."
The nation has a mechanism to protect workers from employer discrimination – it’s called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC]. If you have ever been a manager in a company you groan at the quality of the average employee discrimination complaint.
In 2003, 27,000 sex discrimination claims were resolved nationwide by the EEOC; numbers that were little changed from the prior decade – that’s all claims, not just those against Walmart.
· More than 57 percent of the claims were ruled to have "no reasonable cause" and were dismissed.
· Of the rest, just over 10 percent were judged to have merit after due process, resulting in a total of $94.2 million in settlements.
It is despicable that this case was ever allowed to proceed. Why should we think that lawyers and courts are wiser than the EEOC? But if we do believe in the courts over the government, then why don’t we abolish the EEOC?
Women are still allowed to complain about discrimination and they can always sue if they are unhappy with a decision by the EEOC. Justice and common sense have been served in a way that all of us can understand.
The SCOTUS split came from the liberals lining up behind a detail so esoteric that only liberal lawyers can understand it.
"Wal-Mart's delegation of discretion over pay and promotions is a policy uniform throughout all stores," said Justice Ginsburg, arguing the plaintiffs' claims had some validity. Establishing that delegation of discretion "would be the first step in the usual order of proof for plaintiffs seeking individual remedies for companywide discrimination."
Cue the Aflac Duck, “Whaaaaaaaaa”? Laws, court decisions and contracts should be written such that we can all understand whether we agree or not. If we can’t explain it, we shouldn’t do it. We need to get progressives back in their box and reform the tort system.
No comments:
Post a Comment