The Democrat Thread

[Balta1701]

It's probably also worth noting that Walmart could happily now include a mandatory forced arbitration clause in every employee contract.

[StrangeSox]

It's probably also worth noting that Walmart could happily now include a mandatory forced arbitration clause in every employee contract.

 

That also bars class-action in any and all cases.

[NorthSideSox72]

Seems pretty logical to me... how do you prove a subjective, non-statistically-presentable act on such an enormous scale? The actors are all so fully different, unless you are trying to say that the highest executives are somehow promoting bad behavior. And you'd have to have evidence to prove direct actions like that.

 

I tend to agree with SCOTUS' majority here. Individuals can bring suit and try their cases, but representing a class that large in this non-numbers scenario seems impractical.

 

[StrangeSox]

Seems pretty logical to me... how do you prove a subjective, non-statistically-presentable act on such an enormous scale? The actors are all so fully different, unless you are trying to say that the highest executives are somehow promoting bad behavior. And you'd have to have evidence to prove direct actions like that.

 

I tend to agree with SCOTUS' majority here. Individuals can bring suit and try their cases, but representing a class that large in this non-numbers scenario seems impractical.

 

Yeah, it's a very unwieldy suit they were bringing, and if it were successful, could open a whole host of other problems. The flip side to that is Walmart gets away with what appears to be systematic discrimination.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yeah, it's a very unwieldy suit they were bringing, and if it were successful, could open a whole host of other problems. The flip side to that is Walmart gets away with what appears to be systematic discrimination.

I hope some of the plaintiffs still go for it, if they have reason to... just in a more reasonable scale. Then multiple others could follow suit (ha!), especially if there is some success there. So Walmart can still be made to pay, if they in fact should.

 

[Soxbadger]

Walmart doesnt get away with it, any individual can still sue Walmart.

 

Class action lawsuits are not a right, they are really only supposed to be there for convenience.

[StrangeSox]

Walmart doesnt get away with it, any individual can still sue Walmart.

 

Class action lawsuits are not a right, they are really only supposed to be there for convenience.

 

I'll just go back to some commentary on the AT&T v Concepcion case based on Breyer's dissent:

 

In allowing AT&T to continue requiring its customers to waive their right to partake in class action lawsuits, the Supreme Court has provided corporations with a model of how to avoid liability for the very types of wrongdoing that class-action lawsuits were uniquely equipped to defend against. Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the minority, pointed out correctly that consumers will be without legal recourse if these contract requirements are allowed. “What rational lawyer,” Justice Breyer asked, “would have signed on the represent the Concepcions in litigation for the possibility of fees stemming from a $30.22 claim?” Breyer also doubts that any rational consumer would bother pursuing the $30.22 claim individually if it meant “filling out many forms that require technical legal knowledge or waiting at great length while a call is placed on hold.”

 

Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time to pursue remedies.

 

eta: Go back to my .25 raise versus .30 raise, maybe a grand total of $200 of legitimate damages for the individual who worked there a year. Are you really going to bring suit against that on your own? Probably not. You might not even be aware of the pattern of discrimination. Would you sign on to a large class-action suit? Maybe, maybe not, but the likelihood is much higher.

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[southsider2k5]

I'll just go back to some commentary on the AT&T v Concepcion case based on Breyer's dissent:

 

 

 

Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time to pursue remedies.

 

On the other hand if a few million people filed individual lawsuits for small amounts, that might change ATTs thought process here.

[StrangeSox]

On the other hand if a few million people filed individual lawsuits for small amounts, that might change ATTs thought process here.

 

But they're not going to because it's not worth your time to spend hours and hours and risk possible attorneys' fees etc. for $30. And, again, as noted in that dissent, an important function of class-actions is to inform more people that they've been defrauded or harmed in some way that they might not otherwise be aware of.

Edited June 21, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

On the other hand if a few million people filed individual lawsuits for small amounts, that might change ATTs thought process here.

Of course...the amount of paperwork required for a few million people to file individual lawsuits for small claims, for either of these cases, is prohibitive.

[Soxbadger]

You mean that individual plaintiffs will have to deal with the costs of bringing lawsuits, instead of getting a free ride as a member of a class?

 

At the end of the day class action lawsuits generally benefit 1 group of individuals, lawyers. Millions of dollars are paid to the class action attorneys, very little real money ever reaches the classes hands.

 

Its just a stupid system regardless, but if you want to sue a company, you should have to pay the cost of the lawsuit. They are free to file pro se and most likely the Defendant would settle for nuisance (you can generally get a few hundred dollars just for them not having to file appearance actually hire an attorney).

 

As I said Class Actions are for the benefit of attorneys who make millions, while the injured class gets pennies.

 

Honestly Im not a huge fan of class actions just because they are really nothing more than individual claims that are joined together so that a law firm can get a big pay day. I really dont believe class action suits are there for the benefit of the actual individuals, otherwise you wouldnt see the type of settlements that the class action attorneys sign off on. As long as the attorneys get paid, they could care less what happens to their "plaintiffs".

 

Id be far more cynical if class action lawsuits could only be brought by NFP law firms with the majority of the money going to the harmed class.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course...the amount of paperwork required for a few million people to file individual lawsuits for small claims, for either of these cases, is prohibitive.

First, that's not the case. If its actually literally "small claims" court, they cost is zero if they win and they don't need legal representation.

 

Second, there are groupings that fall between "1 guy suing for $20" and "a million people suing for billions in a wide impact area".

 

[StrangeSox]

You mean that individual plaintiffs will have to deal with the costs of bringing lawsuits, instead of getting a free ride as a member of a class?

 

At the end of the day class action lawsuits generally benefit 1 group of individuals, lawyers. Millions of dollars are paid to the class action attorneys, very little real money ever reaches the classes hands.

 

Its just a stupid system regardless, but if you want to sue a company, you should have to pay the cost of the lawsuit. They are free to file pro se and most likely the Defendant would settle for nuisance (you can generally get a few hundred dollars just for them not having to file appearance actually hire an attorney).

 

As I said Class Actions are for the benefit of attorneys who make millions, while the injured class gets pennies.

 

Honestly Im not a huge fan of class actions just because they are really nothing more than individual claims that are joined together so that a law firm can get a big pay day. I really dont believe class action suits are there for the benefit of the actual individuals, otherwise you wouldnt see the type of settlements that the class action attorneys sign off on. As long as the attorneys get paid, they could care less what happens to their "plaintiffs".

 

Id be far more cynical if class action lawsuits could only be brought by NFP law firms with the majority of the money going to the harmed class.

 

Pointing out problems with class-actions and how attorneys take the lions-share doesn't really address this:

 

Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time or potential attorneys' fees to pursue remedies.

 

Obviously losing the ability to file class actions isn't going to make legitimate suits for thousands of dollars go away, but it will make thousands of suits for low dollars go away.

[Jenksismyhero]

You mean that individual plaintiffs will have to deal with the costs of bringing lawsuits, instead of getting a free ride as a member of a class?

 

At the end of the day class action lawsuits generally benefit 1 group of individuals, lawyers. Millions of dollars are paid to the class action attorneys, very little real money ever reaches the classes hands.

 

Its just a stupid system regardless, but if you want to sue a company, you should have to pay the cost of the lawsuit. They are free to file pro se and most likely the Defendant would settle for nuisance (you can generally get a few hundred dollars just for them not having to file appearance actually hire an attorney).

 

As I said Class Actions are for the benefit of attorneys who make millions, while the injured class gets pennies.

 

Honestly Im not a huge fan of class actions just because they are really nothing more than individual claims that are joined together so that a law firm can get a big pay day. I really dont believe class action suits are there for the benefit of the actual individuals, otherwise you wouldnt see the type of settlements that the class action attorneys sign off on. As long as the attorneys get paid, they could care less what happens to their "plaintiffs".

 

Id be far more cynical if class action lawsuits could only be brought by NFP law firms with the majority of the money going to the harmed class.

 

 

Agreed.

[StrangeSox]

First, that's not the case. If its actually literally "small claims" court, they cost is zero if they win and they don't need legal representation.

 

But if they lose, they can be made to pay the large company's attorneys' fees, which will be pretty substantial and not worth the risk. Or, if it's a relatively small amount (the $30 in AT&T v Concepcion), it's not worth the risk just for the few hundred in filing fees.

 

Second, there are groupings that fall between "1 guy suing for $20" and "a million people suing for billions in a wide impact area".

 

Sure, but since we're discussing potential impacts of these decisions, you should focus on the most important examples that highlight potential problems.

[Jenksismyhero]

It's probably also worth noting that Walmart could happily now include a mandatory forced arbitration clause in every employee contract.

 

So? I have yet to hear a good reason why arbitration is such a bad system. It's an efficient means of settling small claims. And most of the time you have the right to still sue in court as an alternative. Just like in the AT&T case. Hell, that system had a huge deterrent on AT&T screwing people out of decent settlements in arbitration, but apparently that's still not enough.

[StrangeSox]

So? I have yet to hear a good reason why arbitration is such a bad system. It's an efficient means of settling small claims. And most of the time you have the right to still sue in court as an alternative.

 

Plenty of contracts require arbitration and bar you from filing a claim in court or from acting as a class.

 

Just like in the AT&T case. Hell, that system had a huge deterrent on AT&T screwing people out of decent settlements in arbitration, but apparently that's still not enough.

 

The AT&T agreement was actually one of the better ones, but it still completely barred class action. Not sure why companies should be able to limit your access to the courts.

 

Arbitration itself isn't something evil, but the current system is ripe for abuse and limiting claimants' rights.

[StrangeSox]

BTW I still haven't seen anyone address Breyer's contention that restricting class action will essentially eliminate many legitimate claims because they're too small for individuals to file suit over.

[Soxbadger]

Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time or potential attorneys' fees to pursue remedies.

 

An individual can get punitive damages. That is the "punishment", think of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. She won millions of dollars for all of the cups of coffee that were served to hot. That lawsuit could have been a claim where millions of people from McDonalds sued because McD's served coffee to hot. So they would have each gotten a coupon to McD's while their attorneys made millions.

 

The bottom line is that an individual lawsuit or a class action lawsuit can punish a corporation in the same way. The entire purpose of the Class is that they are so similar, it would be a waste of time to adjudicate individual claims. These are claims that arise from the same incident, same transaction, where the same depositions, same interrogatories etc would have to be done thousands of times, instead of once.

 

Look at the Wal-Mart case, these are factually different cases, by different people. If anything making this a class would make there be more work, because youd have to depose every single manager from every Wal-Mart, where as if it was a single case it may only be necessary to depose that single store.

 

Class Actions are a way for attorneys to try and get huge fees on small cases. There is a reason why they make classes, and its not to get their client $30. Im not sure that Ive ever dealt with a corporation that wouldnt settle for under $100 with no questions asked.

 

So does the Class Action help individuals? It helps those that didnt know they were damaged in the first place.

 

So yes my argument does address it, because it shows why Class Action lawsuits arent as important as they are being made out to be in this thread. if you care enough, you have the right to go to court and have your day in the sun.

 

 

(edit)

 

To address Breyer,

 

Hundreds to thousands of legitimate claims are never brought because the amount of the controversy is less than the court cost. I have to tell people that every day, that its not worth suing over $30 etc. But there is a reason, its because if you let everyone sue over everything, the Daley Center would be so packed that you wouldnt get a court date for the next 5 years.

 

If you are upset enough, pay the $200 and have your day in the sun. If you cant afford it, you can get a fee waiver. It really is not that hard.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Soxbadger

[Jenksismyhero]

I'll just go back to some commentary on the AT&T v Concepcion case based on Breyer's dissent:

 

 

 

Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time to pursue remedies.

 

eta: Go back to my .25 raise versus .30 raise, maybe a grand total of $200 of legitimate damages for the individual who worked there a year. Are you really going to bring suit against that on your own? Probably not. You might not even be aware of the pattern of discrimination. Would you sign on to a large class-action suit? Maybe, maybe not, but the likelihood is much higher.

 

The problem is that discrimination doesn't work that way. One person might have made .05 less per hour, another might have been passed over for a job that would have netted a 50k a year salary increase. Class actions work when you can say, here's a whole set of plaintiffs who are in the exact same position (or nearly exact same), and here's the defendant who committed the same wrong against all of them. There's no need to hold 1.5 million trials on damages, or heck, in this case whether any discrimination occurred at all.

[Jenksismyhero]

Plenty of contracts require arbitration and bar you from filing a claim in court or from acting as a class.

 

 

 

The AT&T agreement was actually one of the better ones, but it still completely barred class action. Not sure why companies should be able to limit your access to the courts.

 

Arbitration itself isn't something evil, but the current system is ripe for abuse and limiting claimants' rights.

 

We went over this before, but i'm too lazy to look it up. It didn't bar you completely from filing suit. At some point you had the choice to continue with the arbitration process or seek redress in court.

[NorthSideSox72]

BTW I still haven't seen anyone address Breyer's contention that restricting class action will essentially eliminate many legitimate claims because they're too small for individuals to file suit over.

I responded to that idea, which I disagree with. And class actions are not being removed, they are being narrowed.

 

 

[Balta1701]

The problem is that discrimination doesn't work that way. One person might have made .05 less per hour, another might have been passed over for a job that would have netted a 50k a year salary increase. Class actions work when you can say, here's a whole set of plaintiffs who are in the exact same position (or nearly exact same), and here's the defendant who committed the same wrong against all of them. There's no need to hold 1.5 million trials on damages, or heck, in this case whether any discrimination occurred at all.

How exactly if you're an individual defendant in this case who got passed over for a promotion do you establish that you were passed over because of a weighted system and not because of an individual management decision?

 

Can't all 1.5 million of these cases argue that the decisions were individual cases and nothing untoward happened in that specific case?

 

The real problem appears to have been that this was an institutional policy that impacted everyone. How do you deal with it when it's an instititutional issue? And more importantly now what reason does Walmart have to correct it when it can, in every case, just push the blame for a lack of promotion/equal pay downwards to individual departments that no one would ever sue?

[Soxbadger]

Jenks.

 

Well thats the reason why the class in this case is suspect, because what judicial economy can result here? If you are talking about hundreds of different stores,with thousands of different employees, the class is actually going to be far more burdensome, than actually having the cases separated.

[Jenksismyhero]

BTW I still haven't seen anyone address Breyer's contention that restricting class action will essentially eliminate many legitimate claims because they're too small for individuals to file suit over.

 

In the hypothetical he has a point. But in reality it's not a good one because everyday people get screwed in various ways. They could file suit if they want, but ultimately it's not worth the cost of filing a suit. So you eat the cost. It sucks, but it's life. Class actions don't deter companies from doing whatever they did wrong, so it's not like the system is some great savior to society. As I've argued before, in the long run it's probably more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims than to pay out a 1.5 million person class action.