Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
I'm reading welcome back at foxnews.com -- -- -- well illegals cannot pay for NASA still joining me and now we are joined.
By professor Brian Fitzpatrick from Vanderbilt University the topic we're gonna discuss -- and it did Wal-Mart discriminates.
Against its workers the very important case it's going forward -- -- -- class action in that basin some debate as to whether or not.
It is appropriate and -- meeting the criteria for a class action litigation -- -- these cases be broken out.
And doesn't -- -- be treated differently because our separately because of the differences between them that there isn't enough unifying factors.
I professor you're an expert in this area -- constitutional class action lawsuits tell us how you see this case.
You know in June.
The Supreme Court decided that these women one point five million women who work to Wal-Mart or used to work a Wal-Mart.
They could not join together in one case.
And bring their gender discrimination claims against Wal-Mart.
And so that initial class action case was decertified.
And -- has gone away and what's happened now is the women have come back.
And file to smaller class actions one -- on behalf of all of the employees and former employees in California stores.
And one on behalf of the employees and former employees of the Texas stores.
And the argument is OK if our original nationwide one point five million woman class action was to.
Big how about these California.
And Texas class actions are they gonna be small enough two win certification.
As a class action lawsuit.
And my own personal views of these smaller lawsuits are gonna fail as well wow -- and yet the the Supreme Court decided in June that.
These women could not join together because the people who are making decisions about how much they're paid and whether promoted in and hired.
Where the local store managers.
And so -- different women a difference local stores would have been treated differently for different reasons and there was no common issued everybody.
And so if you just -- a bunch of people of California -- -- -- the same problem.
That the local store managers the one making decisions and therefore you have to proceed at the local store level not an entire state level -- the trying to do now.
Okay and we got a full screen here from Greg -- Wal-Mart spokesman.
And this -- to the New York Times.
He's innocent -- sent home on these planes aren't suitable for class treatment because the situations of each individual -- so different and because it claims of these five plaintiffs are not represented -- of the thousands of women.
Who work at Wal-Mart we also have a statement we have a full screen but -- Who interest union was a lawyer for Wal-Mart said.
-- it's the same theory it's in a different wardrobe and I don't think it's going to work he added later an additional statement.
These -- seemed more intent on alleging classes.
What their publicity value -- -- their legal.
Virtue -- I get your reaction.
Yes so I think the Wal-Mart and almost lawyers have the better of the argument here I really think that these women are gonna have to proceed.
Either individually sue Wal-Mart you know one on one.
Or they're gonna have to make the advanced -- -- in small groups.
Women all from the same local store.
As soon as you start going to multiple stores multiple states -- -- -- -- running into the problems Supreme Court pointed out which isn't women were being treated differently for different reasons and they don't have a common question.
That runs throughout all of them and so I I think wal mart's right I think they're gonna get these suits dismissed just like they got -- big suit dismissed in June.
Filter by section