Keep in mind our Online Discussion Guidelines:
https://openlab.bmcc.cuny.edu/pol-100-introduction-to-american-government-artinian/online-discussion-guidelines/
Instructions for completing this discussion board assignment:
a) Identify which discussion question you are answering in your comment by placing the relevant number at the start of your answer. For example:
2. Crime has often been used as a form of social control by…
4. Michelle Alexander’s argument about segregation…
b) Respond to two other students’ comments.
Respond to the following questions in the “Comment” box below:
These questions are based on the “Sex Class Action” article:
- What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).
1. The supreme court decided that these women could not have a valid case against Walmart because it was not a valid class of plaintiffs on employment discrimination. Commonality played a key in the court’s decision because the class needed to share a common problem but also come up with a common solution which they could not do. Not all the women faced the same level of discrimination which made the case against all the employers difficult to win.
Hey Kyara,
Your point made me clearly understand it better.
Reading your explanation it helped me understand this better, it was simple and clear.
Excellent points, Kyara. Indeed, this was the trick used by the Supreme Court majority: they claimed that the 1.1. million women didn’t ALL share the same (common) grievance: that they had different complaints, some against lack of promotion, others against sexual harassment on the job, etc.
1. The supreme court decided that the lawsuit was technically flawed because it had failed to prove that the women in the class had issues of law or fact in common. In order to win the case, commonality had to be shared among all women to come up with a shared solution. This was failed to do so. While the supreme court does not determine whether Wal-Mart is guilty of sex discrimination, it will have far-reaching effects on class certification in workplace discrimination lawsuits. To protect the rights of Americans they had to bring appropriate class-action suits against discriminatory employers. Such cases ensure that all affected workers can right the wrongs against them and stand together in the face of corporate misconduct.
I loved how much detail you used in your explanation.
Readin your answers help me a lot to break down the questions. Very straight forward
Excellent points, Bianka! Yes, you point your attention to the impotant side-effect of this decision: the Supreme Court evaded the question of whether Wal-Mart’s managers were guilty of sex discrimination. In fact, it left open this question of guilt. This is what makes this case so troubling for all the women who were subjected to gender-based discrimination.
Hi Bianka, I must say after reading your response to the question it gave me a better understanding regarding the Betty Dukes case. Halfway through the article, I felt a bit lost because it seems confusing. In the article where the Equal Right Amendment, introduced to Congress in 1923… I thought there would have been a turning point for the Betty Dukes but it wasn’t.
The supreme court decided that in the Wal- Mart case women didn’t and couldn’t be considered a justifiable class. Commonality is the state of being able to share materials and systems. Commonality became a very distinct reason as to why women had a solution. They had to share commonality within eachother for a solution to work. Every woman experienced a different type/amount of discrimination. That’s why commonality took such an important role in this case, because it was a common problem and they had to share the problem to find a solution despite the discrimation being directed to some more than others
Yes, commonality is the excuse that was used by the court! This allowed them to avoid the question of whether Wal-Mart was guilty or not (and all the evidence suggested that the company was guilty!).
The supreme court decided that women could not have a case against walmart because they could not prove that the women were all facing the same issue, employee discrimination. Commonality played a part in this because in order for it to be a class action suit, everyone has to have the same problem, share a common issue with each other. Not everyone faced the same issue of discrimination.
Yes, indeed! This is why relying on the court for fixing such serious problems, is always a difficulty task: the court may take your side (and take into account the very obvious evidence that your side made available), or it may use it against you!
The Supreme Court decided that the women’s case would not be able to continue on due to the shortage of actual facts considering the Walmart allegations of discrimination. Commonality played a role in the case because in order to make a case all women have to be facing the same type of discrimination but they weren’t. Some of the women unequal pay while. others where verbally discriminated against or had other allegations.
Exactly! All in all, a pretty bad way for the court majority (all men, by the way), to rule against the 1.1 million women suing in the class-action lawsuit.
Hi Morayma, I like your analogy to the question. I must say the article was pretty lengthy and I expected there would have been a turn in the case meaning the Supreme would have granted precedence to Betty Dukes but that wasn’t the case.
What the supreme court ultimately decided amongst the Wal-Mart case was to simply move on. Part to blame was the belief of a lack of evidence that was accumulated by all participated women, in this topic of discrimination. Commonality certainly has been made visible because in order for a case like so to be justified, most or all participants must have similar concerns and or problems to make the accusation valid.
Hello Professor and classmates
Question: What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).
Answer: In the Betty Dukes vs Wal-Mart case the Supreme Court decided that the women did not have a strong or valid case. Meaning the case had too many flaws and could not be classified as a valid class-action lawsuit for employment discrimination against Walmart due to the fact that they were not all being discriminated against the same way. In order to win the case commonality among all women had to be the same.
1.What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).
Answer: In the Supreme Court case what they decided was that women couldn’t have a case with Wal-Mart because they where all women. They had prove that all women were unequally paid. Commonality played a key role because ALL women had to be facing employee discrimination and not all of them where facing the same TYPE of discrimination. The women each described one type of discrimination while others faced verbal discrimination.
In the supreme court case they decided that women couldn’t have a case because there werent enough facts to prove that all women were being paid unequally. Commonality played a key role because ALL of the women had to be facing the same unequality of pay and in this case they were so it wasn’t valid They all experienced different types of discrimination.
The Supreme Court finally put an end to the largest civil rights class-action lawsuit in the United States. Betty Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the plaintiffs in Dukes accused Wal-Mart of discrimination against discrimination based on sex in salaries and promotions, violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The concept of male favoritism was dominant, like in Sue Brown, a former school teacher and full-time sales associate with a master’s degree who noted that the teenage boys she trained were earning more than her. However, the evidence was not clear enough to carry the case forward. The second question of commonality became more contentious, making it central to its ruling. To claim commonality, a lawsuit was therefore required to share a common problem. The Dukes’ class action called for justice for over 1.5 million women, collectively giving them a voice against discrimination and workplace prejudices.