Wal-Mart attempts to block sex discrimination lawsuit.

C

Clak

CAGiversary!
So I'm reading through this article and it all seems pretty standard each side pleading it's case stuff, until I get to this part:

Wal-Mart employs 1.4 million people in the United States and 2.1 million workers in 8,000 stores worldwide. The company said the women should not be allowed to join together in the lawsuit because each outlet operates as an independent business. Since it doesn't have a companywide policy of discrimination, Wal-Mart argued that women alleging gender bias should file individual lawsuits against individual stores.
Click to expand...
So because there is no companywide policy concerning discrimination (that seems strange itself) they figure that each store operates independently (they don't) and therefore these women should have to sue each store involved.

Looking forward to Bob's view on this especially.
 
[quote name='depascal22']As a mega-company, they'll use their high paid lawyers to tie it up for decades.[/QUOTE]
Which is the point of throwing up stupid shit like they're some franchise instead of a centrally managed company.
 
I'd be very curious to see what would happen if WM decided to charge the full $x.99 instead of $x.94 or whatever it is they do. Take that five cents per item and put it into an employee health coverage plan. Want to bet that the whole thing would be completely funded and never run out of cash?

Also, that claim isn't that each store is a franchise, but that they're independently operated is quite genius from a legal standpoint. Of course it could come back to bite them in the ass in a huge way given certain circumstances.
 
no real love for walmart here...

but I've always had a problem with class action discrimination cases...

one of the biggest problems with them lies in knowing how the retail sector operates... meaning that most stores have a manager and they make most of the decisions for promotion/etc... this leads to a good posibility of discrimination but it also means that if 25% of the stores discriminated the other 75% don't belong in the class action suit...

why should someone get reparation for something that didn't happen to them?

oh wait... forgot what forum I'm on...
 
[quote name='dohdough']Wait...Walmart is a franchise? LOLZ...that's the argument they want to use?[/QUOTE]

It's not franchised. Their argument makes absolutely no sense. So glad I haven't shopped there in years.
 
Can't comment too much on the case, but it'd probably be helpful for the group if they weren't lead up by a woman who admits to breaking company policy and clashing with her (female) supervisor on a regular basis. Of course, she still thinks she's worthy of advancing, so such petty concerns like company policy shouldn't matter.

*Disclaimer, of course, that even though I am a Walmart employee, my posts are my own and in no way represent Walmart, nor are they intended to represent Walmart.
 
[quote name='xxDOYLExx']I can all but guarantee Wal-Mart's lawyers are smarter than anyone commenting on this story.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Their lawyers obviously have found some case law to support their opinion whereas everyone in this thread is just saying "that's dumb, stupid Walmart."



What a lot of people don't know or realize is that for purposes of organizing labor (aka union), each store is treated as its own separate business. The reason for this is that in order to form a union otherwise they would have to get the entire company to vote on it which would never help it pass.

So, on the one hand treating each store as a separate business hurts them (because its much easier to convince half of the workers at an individual store to form a union than to convince half the workers in the company) but I'm willing to bet that it has to benefit them at some point.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Agreed. Their lawyers obviously have found some case law to support their opinion whereas everyone in this thread is just saying "that's dumb, stupid Walmart."



What a lot of people don't know or realize is that for purposes of organizing labor (aka union), each store is treated as its own separate business. The reason for this is that in order to form a union otherwise they would have to get the entire company to vote on it which would never help it pass.

So, on the one hand treating each store as a separate business hurts them (because its much easier to convince half of the workers at an individual store to form a union than to convince half the workers in the company) but I'm willing to bet that it has to benefit them at some point.[/QUOTE]

doubt very many people on here know about this or remember it...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-norman/walmarts-meat-wars-with-u_b_91757.html
 
Nice covering your ass there, Bob.

Anyway, for Wal-Mart, in this case, it may very well help them. If anyone buys their bullshit though, that's their stupidity. you'd think there was no parent corporation which owns and ultimately operates each store. Maybe the manager handles the day to day operations, but that doesn't matter when every store is owned by one parent company. Whether it matters in court, who knows. I've heard of more ridiculous things holding up in court.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nice covering your ass there, Bob.

Anyway, for Wal-Mart, in this case, it may very well help them. If anyone buys their bullshit though, that's their stupidity. you'd think there was no parent corporation which owns and ultimately operates each store. Maybe the manager handles the day to day operations, but that doesn't matter when every store is owned by one parent company. Whether it matters in court, who knows. I've heard of more ridiculous things holding up in court.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I'm required to post that every once in awhile. ;)

Here's my understanding - Walmart Stores, Inc. (the parent company) doesn't have a policy that supports or encourages discrimination. If there is any cases of discrimination, it would due to leadership at the individual store level - thus, a class action lawsuit against the entire company based on the actions of leadership at individual stores seems like a faulty plan.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Agreed. Their lawyers obviously have found some case law to support their opinion whereas everyone in this thread is just saying "that's dumb, stupid Walmart."[/QUOTE]

Did I say that? Then keep "everyone" out your mouth, son.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Did I say that? Then keep "everyone" out your mouth, son.[/QUOTE]

Son? Get a fuckin' life.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Son? Get a fuckin' life.[/QUOTE]

I'd say the same to you. You came in so eager to blast on anyone that has the gall to say that Wal-Mart is an evil corporation. Maybe if you actually read something, you'd realize that there are a variety of opinions in every thread.

So far, you've proven to be nothing more than another Bob or Knoell. Or is than insult since you've been here since '04? Maybe you're the original right wing knee dropper on this forum.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'd say the same to you. You came in so eager to blast on anyone that has the gall to say that Wal-Mart is an evil corporation. Maybe if you actually read something, you'd realize that there are a variety of opinions in every thread.

So far, you've proven to be nothing more than another Bob or Knoell. Or is than insult since you've been here since '04? Maybe you're the original right wing knee dropper on this forum.[/QUOTE]

Ad hom, ad hom, ad hom? What's that now?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's my understanding - Walmart Stores, Inc. (the parent company) doesn't have a policy that supports or encourages discrimination.[/QUOTE]

LOL that's the best they can do??
 
[quote name='camoor']LOL that's the best they can do??[/QUOTE]

You'd have to ask them. :D

depascal22, just for the record, I've been a member since before RedvsBlue.
 
There's no doubt that the lawyers have researched this far more than us but saying "company policy doesn't support discrimination" is kind of a "duh" defense. No company would ever do that or they'd be screwed from the get-go.

The defense that they're independently operated is also kind of a "duh" argument as that's how most retail stores/supermarkets are run. The point is that if it happens enough, across different stores, that the "hint" might be coming from HQ.

The only thing I can agree with from Wal-Mart's end is that while it's not as epic as they make it seem, this probably would lead to a lot more class action lawsuits if Wal-Mart gets pinned. As far as non-government/banking institutions go, Wal-Mart is the top dog. If you can take them down, everyone else is cake.
 
[quote name='davo1224']There's no doubt that the lawyers have researched this far more than us but saying "company policy doesn't support discrimination" is kind of a "duh" defense. No company would ever do that or they'd be screwed from the get-go.[/QUOTE]

True - but if the lawyers for the plaintiff could prove that the corporate culture (rather than individual stores) secretly (or outright!) encouraged discrimination, then the class action suit against the company would likely succeed.
 
The argument in front of the court isn't whether they're guilty or innocent. It's whether these lawsuits can be joined as a class action involving just about every female employee employed at a point in time.

The franchisee argument is terrible, but I'm interested to see what the court says about it. I get the feeling they're going to decide it without relying on the merits of the case.
 
[quote name='nasum']I'd be very curious to see what would happen if WM decided to charge the full $x.99 instead of $x.94 or whatever it is they do. Take that five cents per item and put it into an employee health coverage plan. Want to bet that the whole thing would be completely funded and never run out of cash?[/QUOTE]
But then people might think that WM gives a shit about their slave wage employees. At best the company is a cult. You're given 'exercises' to do on a computer terminal, which try to brainwash you into believing the WM mantra, which is 'low prices by denying benefits and livable wages, ALWAYS'.

But I would intentionally fail the brainwashing video things just to be able to stay in the nicely air conditioned room they had the computers in, since the rest of the store was downright balmy since they'd shut off the AC at night(in the middle of summer:bomb:).
 
Well there you have your classic blanacing act. "I want the employees of Wal Mart to be treated well, but fuck if I'm paying $12 instead of $10.50 for that sweater."
When WM emerged as the low cost leader, where did people think it all came from? If you're concerned that your register jockey isn't making enough, give them a tip!
 
[quote name='nasum']Well there you have your classic blanacing act. "I want the employees of Wal Mart to be treated well, but fuck if I'm paying $12 instead of $10.50 for that sweater."
When WM emerged as the low cost leader, where did people think it all came from? If you're concerned that your register jockey isn't making enough, give them a tip![/QUOTE]
I don't shop at WalMart though. I shop at Kmart.:razz:
 
Damn terrorists. You better believe I'm gonna report possible suspected terrorist activity oh great Gestapo errrrrr Homeland Insecurity department.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']It'd actually be hilarious if thousands of people went into various Walmart stores and started flooding that hotline with bogus claims.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how many people will try and report their neighbors they don't like as terrorists?:lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top