Public Citizen’s Gupta notes that “class
actions are an essential tool for justice in our society. Brown v. Board of Education was a class action. The fate of class actions should not be decided through the fine print of take-it-or-leave it contracts.” In a few weeks the Supreme Court
will rule on another major class action case, Wal-Mart v. Dukes. The issue is whether a federal court may hear a nationwide class action on behalf of hun- dreds of thousands of current and former female Wal-Mart employees who believe the company engaged in a pattern-and- practice of pay and promotion discrimina- tion based upon their gender. There are differences between the
Wal-Mart case and the AT&T Mobility rul- ing, but also similarities that do not por- tend well for consumers.
Cases are similar
CBS’s Andrew Cohen writes: The matter in Wal-Mart v. Dukes
focuses upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing class-action status. In the Wal-Mart case, the company is asking the justices to dramatically limit the ability of potential plaintiffs to band together to pursue common claims based upon allegedly illegal conduct. In the AT&T Mobility case, the compa- ny was asking the justices to dramatical- ly limit the ability of its customers to band together to pursue common claims based upon allegedly illegal con- duct. But at their essence, the two cases are quite similar. The AT&T Mobility ruling makes clear that there are five justices on the current Court who are hostile to the notion of ‘class action’ in all of its relevant forms. Based on the track record of history’s
most pro-business Supreme Court, Consumer Attorneys aren’t holding their breath waiting for the Court’s ruling in the Wal-Mart case. They have a pretty good idea how it will turn out and it won’t be good for anyone that wants to hold corporations accountable when they are guilty of doing things that are wrong, harmful or illegal. If you have questions or comments about
this column, feel free to contact me at (213) 487-1212; email
stuart@caala.org.
JUNE 2011 The Advocate Magazine — 85
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96