Wal-Mart too Big to be Sued - Anyone Watching this Case
puremagic
Posts: 1,907
Here's Wal-Mart telling people they can’t file a class action suit against them because they’re too Big, yet, it is their company practices that led to this suit because it is happening in every damn store they establish.
This class action suit has been ongoing for 10 years – 10 goddamn years people and why, because Wal-Mart and other large corporations supporting Wal-Mart's efforts feel that they should be sued on an INDIVIDUAL basis, not via class action.
How many individuals do you know that can take on the cost of a case against Wal-Mart? Now, here comes our U.S. Supreme Corporation who seem to be split in favor of Wal-Mart. WTF.
I know there are those who will look at this case and only see a bunch of women claiming discrimination and harassment. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT OF THE CASE. Next time an automaker’s bad brakes kill 20 people, guess what, each individual family will have to file a separate lawsuit against that automaker – no class action suit will be allowed.
Next time a company’s dog food kills people’s pet, so what, unless, you got the money for an individual lawsuit, you’ll be heading to the shelter for a new dog.
Next time lead paint is found on toy products, too bad, no class action suit – no federal intervention on behalf of the public because - A ruling in favor of Wal-Mart would also, limit the government’s role in joining these civil class action suits to force companies to recall bad products and compensate the public.
Remember when the media blamed China for exporting these lead base products, they played down the fact that these subpar products were made for sell to the American public by Wal-mart, Toys-R-US, Mattel, Target, etc. All the same damn companies that outsource their manufacturing jobs to save a dollar; are the same companies that have a free hand to treat their workers like shit because THEY KNOW THEY WON’T BE SUED.
It will be interesting to see what the U.S. Supreme Corporation does.
This class action suit has been ongoing for 10 years – 10 goddamn years people and why, because Wal-Mart and other large corporations supporting Wal-Mart's efforts feel that they should be sued on an INDIVIDUAL basis, not via class action.
How many individuals do you know that can take on the cost of a case against Wal-Mart? Now, here comes our U.S. Supreme Corporation who seem to be split in favor of Wal-Mart. WTF.
I know there are those who will look at this case and only see a bunch of women claiming discrimination and harassment. YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT OF THE CASE. Next time an automaker’s bad brakes kill 20 people, guess what, each individual family will have to file a separate lawsuit against that automaker – no class action suit will be allowed.
Next time a company’s dog food kills people’s pet, so what, unless, you got the money for an individual lawsuit, you’ll be heading to the shelter for a new dog.
Next time lead paint is found on toy products, too bad, no class action suit – no federal intervention on behalf of the public because - A ruling in favor of Wal-Mart would also, limit the government’s role in joining these civil class action suits to force companies to recall bad products and compensate the public.
Remember when the media blamed China for exporting these lead base products, they played down the fact that these subpar products were made for sell to the American public by Wal-mart, Toys-R-US, Mattel, Target, etc. All the same damn companies that outsource their manufacturing jobs to save a dollar; are the same companies that have a free hand to treat their workers like shit because THEY KNOW THEY WON’T BE SUED.
It will be interesting to see what the U.S. Supreme Corporation does.
SIN EATERS--We take the moral excrement we find in this equation and we bury it down deep inside of us so that the rest of our case can stay pure. That is the job. We are morally indefensible and absolutely necessary.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It's eye opening, I decided never to shop at Wal-Mart after watching it. That was about 6 months ago and I haven't missed them one bit. If everyone decided not to shop there, they could be stopped. They're a menace!
Tell me, from what all you know about what people say are conspiracy theories on the new world order, doesn't all that is happening with decisions by the branches of western governments show you that indeed, we are witnessing the new world order ?
http://www.threeworldwars.com/new-world-order.htm
So, is that the answer to the question we ask ? How can this be happening & why ? :silent:
1998: Barrie
2000: Montreal, Toronto, Auburn Hills
2003: Cleveland, Buffalo, Toronto, Montreal
2004: Boston X2, Grand Rapids
2005: Kitchener, London, Hamilton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto
2006: Toronto X2
2009: Toronto
2011: PJ20, Montreal, Toronto X2, Hamilton
2012: Manchester X2, Amsterdam X2, Prague, Berlin X2, Philadelphia, Missoula
2013: Pittsburg, Buffalo
2014: Milan, Trieste, Vienna, Berlin, Stockholm, Oslo, Detroit
2016: Ottawa, Toronto X2
2018: Padova, Rome, Prague, Krakow, Berlin, Barcelona
2023: Chicago X2
2024: New York X2
Could someone explain it to me?
class action is when a group of people join in to file one lawsuit - generally, in order to save on legal costs associated with suing someone ... the costs and setllements related to the lawsuit are split amongst the individuals ... with about 97% of it going to the lawyers ...
if you saw erin brockovich ... that was a class action law suit
In one way it gives a person a chance to stand up against a huge corporation that has tons of defense lawyers. Otherwise the corporation could easily crush a single entity.
This case could have a devastating financial impact on Walmart if it passes to a class action. In my opinion, the plaintiffs would have to have overwhelming evidence that Walmart top brass made it a point to discriminate against women ... otherwise this should be an individual suit that focuses on the store and manager that are guilty of discriminating.
I assume the action is based on the same grounds..right?
Now Ι have another question. What does being "too big" have to do with it? How do they support that....I don't get it.
( By the way I am a lawyer albeit in a really different legal system. And yes, I have seen Erin Brockovich!)
Alrigth i get it!
Thanks!
But why every female employee. Do they have some sort of practice?
Sorry, for the many questions. I'm just trying to understand!
Alright..so this is where the "too big" fits!
Thanks!
I don't think Wal-Mart is saying it is too big to be sued. I think they are arguing - which is what lawyers are paid to do - that the class is too broad and general for all of the female employees to have the same complaint.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Right - which, as another poster mentions, will be an uphill battle for the plaintiffs to prove. I'm sure Wal-Mart has anti-discrimination literature it posts and distributes, which would help their defense that they do not promote discrimination.
On the other side, if these 6 very unfortunate women have any sort of tangible evidence supporting their discrimination charges, I'm sure they will be successful. Sexual harassment and discrimination are very big dollars and they carry lots of bad publicity for Wal-Mart. My prediction is that we will not hear much more about this, and Wal-Mart will settle with each plaintiff separately.
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=150747
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_on_re_us/us_supreme_court_wal_mart_discrimination
Too bad for tort lawyers as this would have opened the flood gates on class-action lawsuits against large companies.
they are the largest employer in america and maybe the world,so ya gotta ask yourself how many of these claims are legit ? and their benefit package is legendenary for being crap right ? everybody knows that part time employers don't offer bennies for the most part, I've known and still do know people that have worked there for years and have told me about scams the employees pull to try and file a case aginest wal-mart so when I read stuff like this I have to wonder what's really up ?
Godfather.
Godfather.
they run the largest "green" trucking fleet in the world, and they probably employ more otherwise unemployable rejects than any other corporation in the world. & don't forget the nice folks that hand you out the smiley stickers and greet you!
Do they have their own share of problems?
sure.
Is it run the best it could be run?
Always room for improvement.
But the way I see it, the efficiency that WalMart provides to the market place cuts back on LOTS of waste, emissions, traffic, redundancy, etc. Think of all the separate & semi-redundant stores that would have to exist to "replace" any given Walmart. Sure some poor entrepeneurs get the shaft, but fuck em, it's the market, go find something better to do than pedal goods. Its not like those stores were going to save the world. Retailers are a dime a dozen. Crying for "the little guy" doesn't solve anything.
Besides, WalMart has a SUN symbol logo, you KNOW they've just GOT to be headed in the right direction.
Its a NEW WORLD, baby. A NEW world!
ps - yes i've seen that documentary, "The High Cost of Cheap whatever" ... propaganda, that's all.
WalMart has an asshole legal team. Honestly, what corporation doesn't?
PPS - I happen to think the claims in the article Godfather posted are spot on.
I hate to say it, but Scalia is right. You can't justify lumping several million employment claims together as if they were homogeneous.
I think this bears scrutiny as well, "as the majority made clear, the plaintiffs' claims were worlds away from showing a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy."
Do ya'll ***honestly*** think that WalMart Corporate is sending out memos saying "don't give raises and promotions to women? Women are stupid" or do you think ass-hat branch managers are just bigoted\sexist pricks who do things the way they want to do things? Do you think it is fair to sue WalMart on a corporation wide basis based on the sexist PERSONAL agendas of certain of their employees? I dunno.
Devils advocate, but i just don't see it.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hey man,
i think you may actually be missing the point.
This court decision has ZERO bearing on the aforementioned would be claims.
Scalia specifically comments in his decision that the factor causing them to stop this class action suit from moving forward is the lack of similarity between the plantifs claims. These are WIDELY DISCREPANT EMPLOYMENT CLAIMS with an overwhelming discrepancy of subjective circumstances surrounding each individual case.
All the cases you mention would be a single homogeneous product failure.
There would be very little if any discrepancy in the nature of the claims filed in class action on those grounds you mentioned. A defective product class action is so far on the opposite end of the spectrum from a class action employment suit it's not even funny.
Just saying.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Published June 22, 2011
| FoxNews.com
Disgusted with all the "lawlessness" these days, a brave Texas woman chased three men who tried to steal a few cases of beer from a Walmart, the Houston Chronicle reported. Ironically, the heroine's name is Monique Lawless.
On Sunday, she watched three men walk out of the store without paying for the cases of beers they had in tow. Determined to stop them, Lawless told the clerk to watch her purse.
The 5-foot-nothing, 125-pound woman followed the men into the parking lot, jumped on their car’s hood and tried to kick the windshield in, while yelling, “You punks, you are not going to get away with this,” the paper reported.
The men, all brothers ranging from 19-to-21-years-old, laughed and allegedly hit the gas, causing her to fall off the car -- but not before she grabbed the driver's side door handle and was dragged along the pavement, according to the Chronicle.
Police later found the men, who now face charges of evading arrest and aggravated robbery.
Lawless told Fox News on Wednesday that she originally intended to just capture the vehicle's license plate.
"I told the cashier, 'Hey those kids aren't paying for their beers, someone should do something," she said. "I just told her to watch my purse."
Lawless, who suffered a bruised nose and two black eyes during the incident, said the men were so "smug" about the robbery. Asked if she would respond in the same way again, Lawless replied: "Not probably to that extreme. I wouldn't jump on a vehicle like that again, no."
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/06/22/te ... z1Q10xAWDi
Yeah. When I read this in the paper yesterday, before it was posted here, I said the same thing to myself. The corporation seemingly always wins.
The justices all agreed that the lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. could not proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court also said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.