Suing the Beast of Bentonville
This week an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit charging Wal-Mart with paying women less than men, and granting them less promotions, could remain a class-action suit.
NY Times/Reuters has this on details:
Looks like we are another step closer to getting some justice from the bosses of Bentonville.
NY Times/Reuters has this on details:
The plaintiffs estimated they could win billions of dollars in lost pay and damages and that as many as two million women who have worked for Wal-Mart in its American stores since 1998 could join the suit.According to the WSJ, although the decision narrowed the potential pool of plaintiffs a bit, it will remain a class action making it the biggest sexual discrimination case in US history. Certainly Wal-Mart will appeal again, but apparently it will be harder to overturn the decision.
But the court left open the option for Wal-Mart to file a new petition for a rehearing, and a Wal-Mart lawyer, Theodore Boutrous, said the retailer intended to do so.
The three-judge panel of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not reconsider its own decision affirming class certification to the case, but would allow both sides to appeal to the full court.
Looks like we are another step closer to getting some justice from the bosses of Bentonville.
Comments
Class actions are not always better
Class actions require litigation over basic issues that are not present in non-class action cases. This means that there are many expensive and time-consuming hurdles to jump over before you can even get to the point where non-class action cases start.
For certain kinds of cases, though, it's worth it to jump over those hurdles, because once you have a class action the rest of the case is easier.
Class actions are clearly superior when plaintiffs are looking for injunctive relief. The reason is that the issue is the same for all plaintiffs, and the relief needed is the same. If you were to try the same issue in separate cases it would be far more expensive for all parties. But even more important, separate cases means that each judge might issue a different injunction with different requirements for relief. A class action makes it impossible for this to happen.
In a discrimination case, for example, you would want one injunction requiring the employer to change its actions in a specific way - and not in 500 different ways.
In contrast, class actions are far less efficient when each plaintiff has a damages remedy or needs separate and specific relief. In a discrimination case, for example, each plaintiff will have begun work at a different time, have a different work history, different details with regard to discrimination . . . and, as a result, have different damages to be proven and calculated.
As a result, little is gained from a class action.
In the Wal-Mart case, both kinds of remedies are involved. This meant that the judges were weighing whether the added complications of a class action were outweighed by the benefits of trying all the cases in one suit.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require judges examine a list of issues before they can certify a class action. (FRCP Rule 23) You can find that list here.
Law can be complicated and trial procedure can seem far too difficult for a non-lawyer to understand. Knowing what is happening and why can be empowering. I hope that next time you read about a decision being made as to whether a class should be certified, you will understand what the parties are arguing and why.