A Big Business Friendly Term

Commentators seem to agree (here's an exception) that the recent Supreme Court term was great for big business in the United States. Dahlia Lithwick complains that their decisions have given corporations a guide book for how to discriminate among their employees and lie to customers and investors. Much of this is achieved by limiting the ability of people to take cases to the judiciary.

She highlights three specific cases:

- Wal-Mart v. Dukes
- AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion
- Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders

For 2302, her article highlights points we've raised the about the court narrowing "standing" and making it more difficult for people to actually take cases to court. For 2301 this is a great example of the ability of a well financed, cohesive small group to win out over a larger, less cohesive group in the political process.

Justices Rule for Wal-Mart in Bias Case

From the NYT, perhaps the most consequential decision of this Supreme Court term:

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the largest employment discrimination case in the nation’s history. The suit, against Wal-Mart Stores, had sought to consolidate the claims of as many as 1.5 million women on the theory that the company had discriminated against them in pay and promotion decisions.

The lawsuit sought back pay that could have amounted to billions of dollars. But the Supreme Court, in a decision that was unanimous on this point, said the plaintiffs’ lawyers had improperly sued under a part of the class action rules that was not primarily concerned with monetary claims.

The court did not decide whether Wal-Mart had in fact discriminated against the women, only that they could not proceed as a class. The court’s decision on that issue will almost certainly affect all sorts of other class-action suits, including ones asserting antitrust, securities and product liability violations.
From Scotusblog, an analysis of the opinion, and a link to relevant documents related to the case.

Supreme Court Allows Contracts Forbidding Class-Action Arbitration

The Supreme Court continues to make class action lawsuits more difficult to move forward. The case is  AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

From the NYT:

Businesses may use standard-form contracts to forbid consumers claiming fraud from banding together in a single arbitration, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday in a 5-to-4 decision that split along ideological lines.

Though the decision concerned arbitrations, it appeared to provide businesses with a way to avoid class-action lawsuits in court. All they need do, the decision suggested, is use standard-form contracts that require two things: that disputes be raised only through the informal mechanism of arbitration and that claims be brought one by one.

“The decision basically lets companies escape class actions, so long as they do so by means of arbitration agreements,” Brian T. Fitzpatrick, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, said. “This is a game-changer for businesses. It’s one of the most important and favorable cases for businesses in a very long time.”

The decision fits in with recent rulings that have favored arbitrations and been wary of aspects of class actions. 

Regarding the Right to File Class Action Lawsuits

From Business Wire:

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), AFL-CIO, and Change to Win have filed a joint amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the plaintiffs in the Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., sex discrimination case. A joint statement follows:


“For more than 45 years, American workers have sought protection from the courts for equal treatment in the workplace. Workers have joined together to remedy widespread discriminatory workplace practices through class action proceedings and by applying the nation’s civil rights standards to their workplaces. Today, Walmart is attempting to undo that standard by claiming its female associates have no right to appeal for justice as a class.

In our amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, we ask the court to uphold the fundamental pillar of the Civil Rights Act and to ensure that the class action process remains open to workers in all industries.

It continues...

- For more information on the Dukes v. Walmart Stores case, visit www.walmartclass.com

Standing, Class Action Lawsuits and Wal-Mart v. Dukes

A case involving accusations of gender discrimination at Wal-Mart is also allowing the court to question the very practice of bringing class action lawsuits forward. Once again the court is flirting with the idea of limiting standing, the right of people to demonstrate to the court that they have a legitimate reason to take a case to the court.

- ScotusBlog: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ScotuBlog: This Week at the Court.
- Wikipedia: Walmart v. Dukes.
- ClassActionBlawg.
- Wikipedia: Class Action.
- Findlaw: Gender Discrimination