SCOTUS hearing Wal-Mart arguments today; Update 6/20: SCOTUS Dismisses Case (suspect, highway, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
SCOTUS will be hearing the arguments today in the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. This case has huge implications. And there are billions of dollars at stake.
I think Wal-Mart is probably going to lose. From my perspective, the crux of the matter is not whether sex discrimination happened, (there is substantial and credible evidence that it did), but whether the corporate offices fostered such discrimination.
I guess my store manager must have been an exception... seeing as how I received three promotions over the course of 9 months working there. Then again, he was also 5'1 and I still suspect that he was half troll.
A private employer should be able to discriminate against anyone it wants. Let the market decide if they want to shop at a store that has ANY type of policy. If any policy impacts sales, the company will change that policy. CAPITALISM IS BOSS!!!
I guess my store manager must have been an exception... seeing as how I received three promotions over the course of 9 months working there. Then again, he was also 5'1 and I still suspect that he was half troll.
You must have been one of those women that slept your way to the top.. We all know corporations dont promote women unless your sleeping with the boss..
I guess my store manager must have been an exception... seeing as how I received three promotions over the course of 9 months working there. Then again, he was also 5'1 and I still suspect that he was half troll.
I don't know that your store manager was an "exception". I'm sure many store managers that are employed for Wal-Mart don't engage in sex discrimination. Wal-Mart is HUGE. Non-discriminatory managers probably outnumber discriminatory managers. But it seems well-established that there was some discrimination. And the question in holding the company responsible is whether the corporate management was aware that discrimination was occurring, and whether the steps they took to remedy the situation were adequate. One of the things that is often noted by Wal-Mart is how the corporate offices monitor store activities as closely as they do. They can bring up point-of-sale data with greater accuracy and more up-to-the-minute than any other corporation in the world, an impressive feat when you look at the shear size of the operation. They can look for product at any point in their supply chain with such extreme accuracy they could tell you which truck it's on and what highway that truck is traveling this minute. They know how much a store is costing them to operate, its profit margins, its weakest points in marketing. With their capacity to track information, it's difficult to believe that they were unaware of gender pay discrimination that was occurring. And if their responses were to financially reward managers that did discriminate, even while paying lip service to more equitable pay scales, then they have a problem.
You must have been one of those women that slept your way to the top.. We all know corporations dont promote women unless your sleeping with the boss..
I will admit that his height (or lack thereof) held a certain charm... but he was about as straight as a rainbow.
SCOTUS will be hearing the arguments today in the Wal-Mart sex discrimination case. This case has huge implications. And there are billions of dollars at stake.
I think Wal-Mart is probably going to lose. From my perspective, the crux of the matter is not whether sex discrimination happened, (there is substantial and credible evidence that it did), but whether the corporate offices fostered such discrimination.
Um, here's a lesson in Government 101: the US Supreme Court does not argue facts.
At is issue is whether the case should proceed as a class-action lawsuit. That is the only issue to be decided. Whether Wal*Mart did or did not discriminate, or whether it was or wasn't corporate policy are not issues before the Court.
Um, here's a lesson in Government 101: the US Supreme Court does not argue facts.
At is issue is whether the case should proceed as a class-action lawsuit. That is the only issue to be decided. Whether Wal*Mart did or did not discriminate, or whether it was or wasn't corporate policy are not issues before the Court.
You're absolutely right, but DC is also partly right in that the outcome of this case will have serious implications around the country. This case may significantly affect how class actions proceed around the country from now on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
