NationStates Jolt Archive

Wal Mart is finding itself in some hot water as the company urged a federal appeals court to dismiss alleged discrimination cases against women--which are backed up by statistical evidence. The judge referred to Wal Mart's pleas as "arrogant" and when Wal Mart suggested that the women file lawsuits against individual stores, the womens' lawyers said that that propasal was "ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary." Wal Mart once again showing the true colors of wonderful capitalism!

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1020704&page=1

It's their business, they can do what they want with it, but they're stil being assmonkeys.

I'm getting to the point with Walmart where I want to make a hobby of visiting as many of their stores as possible, as often as possible, with a razorblade and some colorfull dye and damaging all the merchandise I possibly can. Maybe I can put a dent in their profits and slow the growth of this retail cancer.

I'm getting to the point with Walmart where I want to make a hobby of visiting as many of their stores as possible, as often as possible, with a razorblade and some colorfull dye and damaging all the merchandise I possibly can. Maybe I can put a dent in their profits and slow the growth of this retail cancer.
Just piss everywhere, it's cheaper.

Just piss everywhere, it's cheaper.
Easier to get caught doing it too. At this point in my life I'd rather not get arrested or go to jail again.

Easier to get caught doing it too. At this point in my life I'd rather not get arrested or go to jail again.
Again? Why'd you get arrested? For getting banned too many times on a forum that shall remain nameless? :D

Wal Mart is finding itself in some hot water as the company urged a federal appeals court to dismiss alleged discrimination cases against women--which are backed up by statistical evidence. The judge referred to Wal Mart's pleas as "arrogant" and when Wal Mart suggested that the women file lawsuits against individual stores, the womens' lawyers said that that propasal was "ridiculous, and would clog the federal judiciary." Wal Mart once again showing the true colors of wonderful capitalism!

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1020704&page=1

ABC seems to have slipped even further into the land of shoddy reporting than I believed possible. here is a more credible source;
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/09/news/fortune500/wal-mart_suit.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest

"He also argued that the lower court's decision stripped Wal-Mart of its right to defend itself by ruling that the retailer could not call individual store managers to testify, for example, that there was no bias against women.
In one round of questioning, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld asked plaintiff attorney Brad Seligman whether Wal-Mart's decision to leave its hiring up to local managers amounted to a systematic policy of discrimination.

"I have trouble getting from there to sex discrimination without statistics," the judge said."

Sorry to rain on your parade - no I'm not.
ht tp://www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-08-07_530250430677198/tv/simpsons/homer/elected_officials.wav

ABC seems to have slipped even further into the land of shoddy reporting than I believed possible. here is a more credible source;
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/09/news/fortune500/wal-mart_suit.reut/index.htm?section=money_latest

"He also argued that the lower court's decision stripped Wal-Mart of its right to defend itself by ruling that the retailer could not call individual store managers to testify, for example, that there was no bias against women.
In one round of questioning, Judge Andrew Kleinfeld asked plaintiff attorney Brad Seligman whether Wal-Mart's decision to leave its hiring up to local managers amounted to a systematic policy of discrimination.

"I have trouble getting from there to sex discrimination without statistics," the judge said."

Sorry to rain on your parade - no I'm not. Time to grow up and start thinking for yourself (http://www.wavsource.com/snds_2005-08-07_530250430677198/tv/simpsons/homer/elected_officials.wav)
Thank you for presenting the other side to the story--but you didn't have to be such an ass about it. So much for CNN being liberal. :rolleyes:

Thank you for presenting the other side to the story--but you didn't have to be such an ass about it. So much for CNN being liberal. :rolleyes:

Yeah, you replied while I was editing - I was trying to play on the wav file - but it didn't link well - I edited the text when I couldn't get the link to work right. Not really trying to insult - just trying to get a fun wav file from the simpsons to play. It's still there, but the effect is lost when it is not clickable. You have to edit out the space between the ht and tp to get it to work.

Yeah, you replied while I was editing - I was trying to play on the wav file - but it didn't link well - I edited the text when I couldn't get the link to work right. Not really trying to insult - just trying to get a fun wav file from the simpsons to play. It's still there, but the effect is lost when it is not clickable. You have to edit out the space between the ht and tp to get it to work.
ah, understood! :)

awesome snippet!

So much for CNN being liberal. :rolleyes:
Who cares whether CNN is liberal or not? Every American news-station has shoddy reporting, thus they all blow, regardless of political leanings.

Ummm...this is what you do when you get sued. You ask for the case to be dismissed and then you do whatever you can to make it hard for the other side. It's called being a good lawyer. If this doesn't work and they think the Plaintiffs have good evidence then they will probably settle. This really isn't something to get your panties in a wad about.

Who cares whether CNN is liberal or not? Every American news-station has shoddy reporting, thus they all blow, regardless of political leanings.
Amen.

Who cares whether CNN is liberal or not? Every American news-station has shoddy reporting, thus they all blow, regardless of political leanings.

Yes. Amen.

I don't watch news at all anymore. If something happened, I'll find it on this forum, with all the biased commentary I could want, without having to look at stupid fake people reading off a teleprompter.

It also wraps itself in the flag, yet is the biggest reason why American manufacturing is dying, since 70% of their merchandise comes from China.
(China keeps it's currency artificially low, so it's goods are cheaper. It also has almost no environmental controls, thus it has 16 of the 20 most polluted cities on Earth!)

WalMart discriminates against everyone who isn't the store manager.
When I worked at a tax office inside a walmart, the manager told me that the general public was only allowed to say "please" and "thank you" to WalMart employees, nothing else!!! Any attempt to hold a conversation with a walmart employee is sexual harassment, unless youre the manager, whereas you can sleep with any female in the store.
But of course, the high volume lawsuit vendors wont take this case, because who wants to defend the rights of a man?

WalMart discriminates against everyone who isn't the store manager.
When I worked at a tax office inside a walmart, the manager told me that the general public was only allowed to say "please" and "thank you" to WalMart employees, nothing else!!! Any attempt to hold a conversation with a walmart employee is sexual harassment, unless youre the manager, whereas you can sleep with any female in the store.
But of course, the high volume lawsuit vendors wont take this case, because who wants to defend the rights of a man?
That manager was a nut. What a load of crap.

He also cant controll his temper. He pounded my desk and nearly punched me.

It's their business, they can do what they want with it, but they're stil being assmonkeys.
It may be their business, but they still have to comply with anti-discrimination laws. And I agree with the ass-monkey comment.

This lawsuit has been going on for a while--this is just the latest chapter in the story.

Ummm...this is what you do when you get sued. You ask for the case to be dismissed and then you do whatever you can to make it hard for the other side. It's called being a good lawyer. If this doesn't work and they think the Plaintiffs have good evidence then they will probably settle. This really isn't something to get your panties in a wad about.
The best thing is...if you settle, you can claim you didn't actually do what you were accused of, and lots of people will believe you. Sad, but effective. Dragging this through the courts would just hurt them publicity wise. I doubt they will.

The best thing is...if you settle, you can claim you didn't actually do what you were accused of, and lots of people will believe you. Sad, but effective. Dragging this through the courts would just hurt them publicity wise. I doubt they will.
There are too many cases to settle effectively--this is the largest class action suit in history, I believe. There might be a class-settlement eventually, but Wal-Mart's been fighting this vigorously for a long time now, and they don't like to lose.

There are too many cases to settle effectively--this is the largest class action suit in history, I believe. There might be a class-settlement eventually, but Wal-Mart's been fighting this vigorously for a long time now, and they don't like to lose.
That's true...it might be too big to settle. Which means they need to quash it if they can. I don't know enough about it to guess if they'll lose or not. But as for them denying it...of course they are. Now if they were found GUILTY and still denied it, I'd be more concerned:).

That's true...it might be too big to settle. Which means they need to quash it if they can. I don't know enough about it to guess if they'll lose or not. But as for them denying it...of course they are. Now if they were found GUILTY and still denied it, I'd be more concerned:).

Not to nitpick, but they wouldn't be found "guilty", but would be found "liable".

I seriously doubt that it's too big to settle. It might just be very expensive.

To be honest, I can't understand why they would want to seperate all of those cases. It would be a lot more expensive for them to do that. On the other hand, the individual payouts expected might be too low to interest anyone in individual trials.

Not to nitpick, but they wouldn't be found "guilty", but would be found "liable". He says, as he nitpicks:) The layfolk would call it guilty, regardless of the correct term.

Not to nitpick, but they wouldn't be found "guilty", but would be found "liable".

I seriously doubt that it's too big to settle. It might just be very expensive.

To be honest, I can't understand why they would want to seperate all of those cases. It would be a lot more expensive for them to do that. On the other hand, the individual payouts expected might be too low to interest anyone in individual trials.I think their strategy is a divide and conquer one--as a class, there are a lot more women involved in the suit than would file individually, simply because there are fewer lawyers who would go one on one with Wal-Mart for strictly a contingency fee, since they know that alone, Wal-Mart can swamp them with not much in return even if they win. So, if Wal-Mart can get rid of the class status, a lot of these lawsuits will disappear.

Again? Why'd you get arrested? For getting banned too many times on a forum that shall remain nameless? :D
A few times for drugs, once for DWI, once for weapons charges that were downgraded to harrasment. Never for fighting though. I've always been able to get away before the cops showed up or been clearly defending myself and had witnesses to back me up.

He says, as he nitpicks:) The layfolk would call it guilty, regardless of the correct term.
Well, there is an important difference in this context though. You are found "guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt. You are found liable by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not that you are liable. So I don't think it would be that strange for them to be found liable and still maintain that they did nothing wrong.