But betting against the 9th Circuit is almost always a good idea: The Court has overturned 84 percent of the cases it has taken from the 9th Circuit so far this year, and thatâs not counting todayâs decisions yet. Can we call the Ninth district a waste of taxpayer money.........It should be cut as part of the deficit reduction act.
Removing the current judges on the Ninth Circuit and replacing them, say with people chosen by random lottery, would be an improvement.
Just quickly googling walmart lawsuit settlements shows that they've really gotten their asses kicked good, in excess of $100 million (that I spotted) over the past decade. So I think it's good to see them win one.
No, this case was about women. Dirtbag lawyers conned idiot judges into certifying a class of thousands of women whose only common feature was the fact they worked at WalMart. To leftists that is enough to force Walmart to pay them billions. Next up, blacks, then hispanics. Then gays. Of course, all of them work at Target.
Actually, as far as big companies go, Wal-Mart has a huge history of documented abuses. They've been fined hundreds of millions for them, too. They're too much the hick company, from their birth, to adapt to the reality that people have cellphones with cameras now, among other tools.
Watching the evening news earlier the media sure painted the ruling as an affront to women the world over.
Following is the best analysis I've seen: The decision to decertify the class was 9-0, not 5-4 as widely reported. As Justice Ginsburg's partial dissent begins, "The class in this case, I agree with the Court, should not have been certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)." All of the justices agreed that a civil rights class action was the wrong vehicle for seeking damages that would be different for each of millions of employees. And all of the justices agreed that it would be unfair to Walmart to conduct a "Trial by Formula," calculating damages for a few employees and then giving proportionate damages to the rest. For example, female employees with female managers, who never claimed any discrimination, would have recovered damages--clearly a serious problem. Where did the justices disagree? Justice Ginsburg would have let the employees try again to get the class certified using a different type of class action, with an even harder burden of proof. The employees would not only have to prove that they had common questions to be resolved, but that those common questions predominated over individual questions--like damages. Given the need for millions of mini-trials to calculate damages for each employee, this class too almost certainly would have failed. Therefore, it is misguided, at best, to characterize this as a 5-4 decision. For practical purposes, the Supreme Court's opinion was unanimous.