Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

3 Bumps

Is discrimination okay as long as it's on a massive scale?

Guess so.

The Supreme Court put the brakes on a massive job discrimination lawsuit against mega-retailer Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., saying sweeping class-action status that could potentially involve hundreds of thousands of current and former female workers was simply too large.

Too big to fail...too big to discriminate...i think we're beginning to like the way that sounds.

Answer Question

Asked by UpSheRises at 10:33 AM on Jun. 20, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 31 (48,798 Credits)
Answers (20)
  • HOLY...WHAT?!? Isn't that what a class action lawsuit is for?
    "Now, the handful of women who brought the lawsuit may pursue their claims on their own, with much less money at stake and less pressure on Wal-Mart to settle."

    Answer by CHarlan at 10:47 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • And once again the big corporation beats out the little man. IMO they should have to pay for what they have done regardless of the amount and size of the group, they are the ones who allowed it to be such a massive group.  If Wal-Mart was still practicing the values by which it was established then they would not have a problem righting this wrong, but obviously they have moved past ethics, morals and values.


    Answer by amazinggrace83 at 11:01 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • While I sympathize with the workers, I hate class action suits. The only winners are the attorneys and they walk away with millions. BTW, I hate Walmart for a myriad of reasons.

    Answer by yourspecialkid at 11:12 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • One more reason for me to avoid wallyworld like a plague. I do agree with YSK about class action suits, but in this instance ~ for all that Walmart has done to destroy customer service, destroy small businesses, make working retail the equivalent of 'would you like fries with that' (and even more attitude in many cases), their arrogant 'if we don't have it you don't need it' mentallity, and too many more sins to list here ~ I would love to have seen them held accountable.

    Answer by Farmlady09 at 11:34 AM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • So the big retailer can throw its weight around ... hmmm

    Answer by tasches at 12:37 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • I wonder how much Wal-Mart had to pay for that ruling.....

    Answer by hootie826 at 1:24 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Walmart and other large big box stores have been a life-saver to families that have suffered from unemployment, dollar devaluation and union abuses that have caused an increase in the cost of living. The smaller stores compete with better quality and better service and that attracts those of us that appreciate the difference. I would never be so arrogant to decry a more cost effective way for those of you that are living pay check to pay check and find it more difficult each month to make ends meet while your home sinks underwater and your job hangs on the repeal of Obamacare.

    Answer by annabarred at 1:35 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Yeah...sorry. Selling cheap crap doesn't preclude you from treating your employees with dignity and respect.

    Unions and Obamacare didn't force Walmart to discriminate against thier employees.

    Comment by UpSheRises (original poster) at 1:49 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Walmart is anti-union anyway so the employees have right of redress through collective bargaining and internal joint consultation on issues pertaining to working conditions . I am amazed that a respected judicial system would decide the legal case is ' too big ' . Yes , we had this argument with banks being too big to fail and one failure of the Administration's regulatory reforms was cutting big banks down to size so that in future they are no tto big to fail and are allowed to fail just like other businesses that can't cut the mustard . I never shop at Walmart anyway . Quite apart from from their business practices , I dislike the stores .


    Answer by janet116 at 2:06 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

  • Correct error - meant to say '" right of redress .." in the first sentence of my answer.

    Answer by janet116 at 2:11 PM on Jun. 20, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.