Wal-Mart women denied discrimination class action - updated

Labels: » » » » » » »
If one is unemployed... one has time to study... and better himself or herself. Our culture is set up this way. To merely say that men make more is to obscure the truth... which is that statistically men must overcome obstacles to get to that employment. No government or judicial can account for this kind of economic complexity in our culture. women make less, but are more likely to be employed. giving women equal pay because of affirmative action will not employ men... in fact it would probably hurt a woman's job opportunity. obviously it is complex... and therefor there are no conspiracies against women.
Betty Dukes and Christine Kwapnoski
Betty Dukes, left,
and plaintiff Christine Kwapnoski
were two of the named plaintiffs in the case

The Unsolved Problem of Labor: In a dissenting opinion, the court's four liberal justices agreed the Wal-Mart case did not merit a class action, but would have taken a less narrow view of the requirements for a class action suit over back pay.

...meanwhile it is men who are statistically out of work.
The US Supreme Court has dismissed the largest class action lawsuit in history, ruling against women alleging discrimination by US giant Wal-Mart.
The court ruled that 1.5 million women who said they were paid less because of gender must pursue action individually.
Plaintiffs had sought to unite more than a million women in their effort.
The court accepted Wal-Mart's argument that the women work in diverse jobs in stores across the US and do have not enough in common for a class action. via bbc.co.uk
who can men sue?

Google+ Badge

Google+ Followers

Translate