Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Gotta love that and she's here in -- and my partner in crime or crime plus.
-- -- -- Recently Ellis here joining -- leave together again is in Milano and then -- all right apparently there barely barely live on a lot of -- and I don't rally you've got sends about me MS for us on a Wal-Mart the case being -- you have -- ruling coming down on Carolina yesterday so.
Return the ninth circuit -- yeah my favorite circuit -- And hate what we go to practice.
Yeah saying that one point five million women who had joined into that what they wanted to have a class action.
Suit against Wal-Mart.
I think the largest employer in the country who recognize an -- from the Bronx -- -- yet they and so that they could not go form this class action.
There was another.
Not enough political commonalities.
You're in there class actions to go forward that there -- -- -- diversity between women that were you know 3004 and and -- stores.
And that is always human had different stories about what it hasn't happened -- accident left no commonalities that they couldn't go forward as a class action major win for Wal-Mart of course.
And major win for corporate America.
People that want to bring class action suits now I don't think it's over because many of these women can still band together.
In a smaller group and you know lipstick region by region they could go something like battered her he has certain things that happened to -- -- not over it's not over it's -- know there are different and it's made much more difficult by the Supreme Court.
-- and we have -- Wal-Mart has released a statement that we -- now amended the by reversing the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.
The majority effectively ends this class action lawsuit.
Wal-Mart has a long history of providing advancement opportunities for female associates and we'll continue its efforts to build a robust pipeline of future.
-- -- -- Leaders and that's coming well -- all -- -- executive VP at that right by all accounts.
Since this lawsuit was -- -- has been years ago and they they Wal-Mart really has tried to do things to make it better for women a better environment for women.
There was no I mean I think with the class action.
I was missing again there was no kind of smoking gun for them because they could point to a metal and say you know the edict from on top was saying to discriminate against women.
I'm so they were looking at stats and things like that and the Supreme Court that we have -- really aren't enough.
To bolster -- case to get a before a jury now on the other hand to be fair to the women.
I think a lot of them do have cases.
That should have at least -- but just -- jury and that's sort of what's upsetting to me is that.
Something was you know kind of just squelched at this point before I got to a jury let a jury decided mean that's our system.
Well yeah yeah I mean.
We'll get a lot of people on the live chat here now Mike I think this is a -- decision to help reduce the nonsense class -- it only benefits.
Plaintiff lawyer is and then -- -- has in the ninth circuit and overturn don't tell me.
I'll give him every -- they're really pretty famous actor writer and and then you people -- criticize it and it's.
It's the most overturned circuit in the country that that is you know that's definitely -- -- But -- just so we don't this -- all class action lawyers yes a lot of times when people bring a class action suit.
It's for fairly minor things you buy a product that doesn't work you know maybe it's a hundred dollars 200 dollars maybe -- thousand dollars out.
But it's certainly not enough money if you go hire a lawyer by yourself.
Where is he band with a class action.
One lawyer who doesn't get paid by the way until they make money for you right -- takes on your case and so.
I don't want this case to sort of you know set a precedent.
In a bad idea you know all class action lawyers about -- or not they are a lot of that work to me asking about -- said the changes that at Wal-Mart would have been close of the courts have -- disgusted but not giving -- yet again.
Quick comment did you have this case.
It's easy to confuse the merits with the procedural part in other words on Rangel 43 of the federal rules -- Hollywood is what -- filed a rational determination.
That there's a commonality of the claims of rain and that the plaintiff.
Fairly represented -- The only point I'm making is that this ruling means it can't afford as constituted as -- said.
The problem is a lot of times people interpreted as though it's a substantive determination.
I don't know how did nothing.
Man I don't think either procedure all of that and even there with a closer look at this point is lower class action is supposed to be didn't make little bit easier for people who otherwise wouldn't have the fun of me -- -- -- Brady case they have been wrong because we can't idea you know that.
-- Microsoft and apple -- for things like that you know malfunctioning or not -- right.
Things that you would never read that you know the regular person would be -- and well here.
Hire a lawyer and yet they would have been -- damn your point was the key which is apparently and I don't know this.
For Rand study did there is a divergence in the commonality and and I and the point is usually paring down and -- right northwest as I sign now they'll be able to do that might be able to help these women it -- -- some of them probably drop out of the it would take these women and say okay.
You were promoted to manager -- you were fired because you were pregnant are you had this you know that are sexist -- -- -- -- All of those things and -- it not -- put them together.
Put those sub -- together and then be able to say.
You know with 2030400.
Even few thousand people -- this is what happens --
Filter by section