Supreme Court leaves fund investors hanging

[DontSayBanana]

I disagree; that opinion is likely to have a bigger impact, b/c it has implications of all kinds of class actions.

Since we don't have a thread for it, I gotta vent: that opinion by Scalia is borderline retarded- he's applying a strictly de jure viewpoint of "policy," when that's not always the case in discrimination cases.  We've had successful suits where a woman argued discrimination in a garage because of nudie calendars.  That's not "policy," according to Scalia's definition, that's just the work environment.  I'd love to see where he decided often-ignored company handbooks weigh more in dictating "policy" than the de facto standard of the actual environment the employees are forced to work in every day.

[Neil]

We've had successful suits where a woman argued discrimination in a garage because of nudie calendars.

And that'll change now. 

[Admiral Yi]

Since we don't have a thread for it, I gotta vent: that opinion by Scalia is borderline retarded- he's applying a strictly de jure viewpoint of "policy," when that's not always the case in discrimination cases.  We've had successful suits where a woman argued discrimination in a garage because of nudie calendars.  That's not "policy," according to Scalia's definition, that's just the work environment.  I'd love to see where he decided often-ignored company handbooks weigh more in dictating "policy" than the de facto standard of the actual environment the employees are forced to work in every day.

I'm confused by this post.  I thought the decision was to decertify the class, not that the three women who had brought specific charges of discrimination had not been discriminated against.

[The Minsky Moment]

Since we don't have a thread for it, I gotta vent: that opinion by Scalia is borderline retarded- he's applying a strictly de jure viewpoint of "policy," when that's not always the case in discrimination cases.  We've had successful suits where a woman argued discrimination in a garage because of nudie calendars.  That's not "policy," according to Scalia's definition, that's just the work environment.  I'd love to see where he decided often-ignored company handbooks weigh more in dictating "policy" than the de facto standard of the actual environment the employees are forced to work in every day.

I'm confused by this post.  I thought the decision was to decertify the class, not that the three women who had brought specific charges of discrimination had not been discriminated against.

One of the issues that has to resolved in certification is whether the named plaintiff raise questions of fact or law that are common to the entire class.  One way of doing that is to demonstrate that there is a company-wide policy that generates the discriminatory effect.  Scalia acknowledges this but then contends there is no discriminatory corporate policy here.  On that basis he finds no "commonality" and thus no certification.

[grumbler]

One of the issues that has to resolved in certification is whether the named plaintiff raise questions of fact or law that are common to the entire class.  One way of doing that is to demonstrate that there is a company-wide policy that generates the discriminatory effect.  Scalia acknowledges this but then contends there is no discriminatory corporate policy here.  On that basis he finds no "commonality" and thus no certification.

That would seem to be a fundamental principal of class actions.  I don't understand how applying it is "borderline retarded."  I also don't understand how one can complain that a judge is "applying a strictly de jure viewpoint" when that is, after all, what we hired him for.

[dps]

One of the issues that has to resolved in certification is whether the named plaintiff raise questions of fact or law that are common to the entire class.  One way of doing that is to demonstrate that there is a company-wide policy that generates the discriminatory effect.  Scalia acknowledges this but then contends there is no discriminatory corporate policy here.  On that basis he finds no "commonality" and thus no certification.

That would seem to be a fundamental principal of class actions.  I don't understand how applying it is "borderline retarded."  I also don't understand how one can complain that a judge is "applying a strictly de jure viewpoint" when that is, after all, what we hired him for.

One can make that complaint when one doesn't understand the law as it relates to the case, or when one has an axe to grind.  Neither, of course, make the complaint reasonable.