Voronwë the Steadfast wrote:I've had a chance to read through the opinions, and not surprisingly, I fully agree with Justice Ginsberg. But my overwhelming sense here is this a case in which the attorneys for the plaintiffs greatly overreached, with a result that caused more long-term harm to the cause of opposing workplace discrimination than was necessary.
I worked for a small firm wherein the lawyer suggested a "class action" lawsuit with regards to an employment case wherein a lot of senior management people were getting fired or forced to resign so they can "save money" and hire people who will work for less compensation in a span of six months. I was scratching my head because the circumstances in which this alleged lay-offs were happening were different from one employee to another. One was fired because of absentism (underlying medical condition), the other didn't meet his sales goals after 15 years working there, the other he said he was discriminated because of his race and so on. I couldn't understand why the lawyer suggested a class action suit.
The lawyer asked the plaintiff to round up his colleagues and they will file a case. Good thing, none of the colleagues want to join him and hired their own individual lawyers. Now, the company would have had more headaches and it would cost them more money paying their high priced lawyers working on different cases. In my opinion, class action lawsuits create a buzz that "we" are fighting the big bad wolf and some companies don't like being in the spotlight and have their reputation tarnished, so the mentality is, "the company will give in" but I guess not in this case. Walmart's reputation is not getting great reviews so it was best for them not to give in and just fight it out in court.
