StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:56 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:48 PM) 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: 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.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:37 PM) 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 03:29 PM) 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.

Are there ever times you feel class-action is legitimate?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 02:04 PM) I'm happy with a decision that forces people to prove their individual case when there's not a lot of commonality to infer that each plaintiff was the victim of the same discrimination and suffered the same types of damages. If discrimination was pervasive at Walmart, you could still be a victim without being able to prove the merits of an individual case or point to a specific, personal action. i.e. see Brown vs. Plata where the majority agrees with this line of reasoning.

I'm glad I talked my fiance into seeing Super 8 on Saturday instead.

Is it really so bad that we're pining for Mark Teahen to get AB's?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 01:02 PM) Individual suits. You can still use those statistics to bolster your case if you don't already have a strong one ("see jury! not only did she not get the promotion despite being overly qualified, but she's not the only one in the company...") Well that goes back to the argument we had before, most of those suits will never get filed because individually they're not that strong. You need the grand pattern of being a s***ty company to drive the case and to have it actually make an impact on Walmart, both financially and policy-wise. eta: "I only got a .25 raise as cashier while the males routinely got .30" isn't a case worth suing over individually, but if you've got 100,000 cashiers with the same claim in a class suit...well...

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) But by this logic any women employed by Wal-mart is now a class member, even if they never applied for a promotion or raise, let alone actually being denied those things in favor of a male counterpart. That's Scalia's point - how can you really say there's commonality when you're talking about tens of thousands of business decisions that are independent from one another? You're basically using two criteria to define the class - being a female and employment with Wal-mart. Well that's why it's a very difficult issue. How does this get fairly judicated?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 12:14 PM) Yeah, they weren't split on that issue. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 12:34 PM) In this case, you're both completely incorrect. There were 2 parts of the decision, one part decided unanimously, and another part decided 5-4. The 9-0 agreement part of that decision was regarding whether back pay was an appropriate response under a certain part of the law usually used for injunctive relief. The question of whether or not these plaintiffs had enough in common to qualify for class-action status was decided on the usual 5-4 lines. lol (at myself)

Based on the three recent class cases, it seems like Scalia doesn't believe that class-action should even exist.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 12:42 PM) instead of relying on general statistics of a company employing millions and millions of people? I dunno, statistical samples of that large of a group to show systematic discrimination seems pretty appropriate. A thousand tiny, individual claims may not amount to much on their own, but lumped together, can show that Walmart is either actively discriminatory or does nothing to correct or prevent it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 12:11 PM) this was a unanimous decision. Yeah, they weren't split on that issue.

QUOTE (Milkman delivers @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 09:39 AM) For the billionth time, it's also fairly obvious that Williams DOES NOT have the power to fire Ozzie. Then he should resign, if only for his own dignity.

Here is the complete article: http://www.pophealthmetrics.com/content/9/1/16/abstract Smoking and obesity are cited as primary causes along with wealth inequality. From the article:

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 09:27 AM) You show that life expetancy continues to increase, but for a specific region and gender, and you manage to take that as a sign of failing health care. Quite a leap, no? Life expectancy in the US is increasing more slowly than all of those awful socialist countries with terrible healthcare and rationing and millions fleeing to America to get treatment. In some places, it's actually falling, which just doesn't really happen in developed countries. It's not a leap to lampoon the "rah! rah! best healthcare system in the world!" cheerleading crap based on that. Well, that is a huge problem, especially since it's generally the impoverished areas we're talking about. But... Agreed, but I'll point to the same "rah! rah!" cheerleaders viciously attacking Michelle Obama for her healthy foods campaign, vehement opposition to trans fat bans or taxes, vehement opposition to food subsidies for the poor, etc. A big problem with health care and access to it is poverty. But, yeah, ultimately poverty is the larger issue here and a single-payer UHC system is an attempt to address just one area that's largely affected by poverty. It's just that it's a pretty important area.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 08:18 AM) The problem is...I think he thinks he works hard enough. Remember the 3 pages or so of people defending how insane his workout/yoga routine was we had in last year's thread when this same topic came up? Maybe that's it. He busts his ass. He's not a lazy slouch wasting his talents. But he doesn't work on the areas he needs to work on the most.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 08:23 AM) I'm pretty sure that "a mental image of a person eating Jesus" is one of the Holy Sacraments. Only if you're Catholic afaik

I think the analysis linked explained the how and why and the split better than I could summarize. Class action suits have been hit pretty hard recently by this court. eta: I'm not really sure if this is a bad decision, though. The case would be very, very hard to prove with such a large class with a wide range of claims. I mean, ethically, yeah, I'd like to see terrible companies like Walmart pay through the nose for their terrible business practices, but I don't know that this lawsuit and the way it was structured was really legit. eta2: but they also upheld the class cert. in the California prison case over Scalia's ranting and fire-and-brimstone predictions.

Falling life expectancies in the US US Healthcare! Best in the world! :headbang

The SCOTUS rejected the giant class action Walmart sex discrimination case yesterday: http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/06/opinion-...s-two-messages/

QUOTE (lostfan @ Jun 18, 2011 -> 11:11 PM) I like that David Tyree's opinion on gay marriage in NY matters because of one big catch. Then again I guess he's an expert at squeezing balls near his head. David Tyree, human piece of feces, willing to give up Super Bowl ring to prevent gay marriage.

SCOTUS rules unanimously that the Clear Air Act displaces climate change "nuisance" lawsuits http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 17, 2011 -> 04:13 PM) In an # of ways, some existential, some practical, but all real and do matter. Even abstract things like "my country doing something I don't believe in" affect me. But at the very least it made many detainees at guantanimo impossible to try on real courts because their testimony would get thrown out and helped lead to the quagmire of Gitmo today, which contributes to hostility abroad toward that policy and tax dollars. yeah but weiner's dick. think of the impact on you, the emotional damage knowing the heat some guys are packing. much more important than foreign policy!