Classless action

It's official - the class action lawsuit bill passed the Senate 72-26 and looks clear to pass the House:

The measure would prohibit state courts from hearing many kinds of cases they now consider, transferring them to federal courts. Experts say many cases will wind up not being brought because federal judges have been constrained by a series of legal precedents from considering large class actions that involve varying laws of different states.

The legislation also makes it more difficult for class-action lawsuits to be settled by payments of coupons for goods and services instead of cash by the defendants, a practice that has been heavily criticized by Democrats and Republicans.

The measure does not affect pending cases.

Mr. Bush issued a statement praising the vote, his first legislative victory of his second term.

"Our country depends on a fair legal system that protects people who have been harmed without encouraging junk lawsuits that undermine confidence in our courts while hurting our economy, costing jobs and threatening small businesses," the president said. "The class-action bill is a strong step forward in our efforts to reform the litigation system and keep America the best place in the world to do business."

And while the bill does not affect pending cases, let's look at one case it would now be more difficult to file:

Wal-Mart, a global retail giant, reported sales in excess of $256 billion in the fiscal year ending January 31, 2004. Currently Wal-Mart owns and operates 3,566 stores in the United States. Wal-Mart employs more than 1.2 million employees in the United States, two thirds of whom are women, more women than any other company in the nation. Wal-Mart maintained that, despite claims to the contrary, it did not operate as a centralized unit, and that discrimination is not systemic. Plaintiffs argued that the corporation's procedures and policies are indeed highly standardized, and the company more than able to track discriminatory practices.

"This ruling brings Wal-Mart one giant step closer to being as vigilant in accounting for equal pay and promotional opportunities for women as it is in keeping track of its stock of toothpaste, tires and t-shirts," said plaintiffs' co-counsel Irma D. Herrera, executive director of San Francisco-based Equal Rights Advocates.

The Judge noted that in their case, "plaintiffs present largely uncontested descriptive statistics which show that women working at Wal-Mart stores are paid less than men in every region, that pay disparities exist in most job categories, that the salary gap widens over time, that women take longer to enter management positions, and that the higher one looks in the organization the lower the percentage of women."

The Court in reviewing all of the evidence found that together the evidence presented by the plaintiffs, "raises an inference that Wal-Mart engages in discriminatory practices in compensation and promotion that affect all plaintiffs in a common manner."

The female plaintiffs and the class in this lawsuit are represented by three public interest non-profit groups, The Impact Fund (Berkeley, CA.), Equal Rights Advocates (San Francisco), Public Justice Center (Baltimore, MD), and four private law firms of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll (Washington, D.C.) Davis Cowell & Bowe (SF) and New Mexico's Tinkler & Firth and Merit Bennett (Santa Fe, NM). Plaintiffs' counsel includes some of the most experienced class action and sex discrimination attorneys in the country.

Thanks for making it easier for nationwide companies to dodge litigation brought on by practices of sexual discrimination, Congress!

*UPDATE* By the way, for fellow Californians, you shouldn't be surprised to hear Fienstein voted "yea," Boxer "nay."