It is an analogy Younin. Attorneys recruit large numbers for frivolous class actions (frivolous for the majority of the plaintiffs) in a concerted coordinated effort to extort money from deep pocket corporations. Class actions are more expensive than chasing ambulances but one verdict can set up an attorney for life while returning a pittance to those few who actually suffer damages.
I didn’t say it – the Supreme Court said it: “It accepted Wal-Mart’s argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit”
June 20, 2011 at 2:47 pm
ernie says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
This may or may not be one of those cases, but I believe one of the primary requisites for filing a class action suit should be that the members of the class have suffered significant damages and that they will be justly compensated for those damages.
It sickens me to hear about thousands of customers getting a $1.80 credit on their next cell phone bill or a coupon for a dollar off a box of tissue while the lawyers who institued the suit get paid millions. Or trying to include me in a class action because my office may have received a handful of unsolicited fax messages that cost me nothing except for the paper they were printed on.
This makes perfect sense. There’s just no way that the corporation has liability and management capability to spawn a common factor regarding all the women in 1,000,000 positions. This seems like someone trying to make a play at statistics, but correlation does not equate to causation. In this case it just so happened to work out that the women were in the position they were in. There is no common ground causing it (other than possibly gender bias, which just happens sometimes, suing isn’t going to fix it).
I worked with a female attorney for over 2 years. She struggled with the correlation vs causation concept. Actually, it was less of a struggle and more of a “I don’t wanna hear it”.
I think many people struggle with correlation and causation and think it is BS. For those of you who have read Freakonomics, there is a danger of ignoring both concepts.
My own experience – I worked for more women than men. I have worked in a few industries. What I see is things are getting better but the glass ceiling also is put in place by some of the women. I have friends and former bosses decide they prefer to be full time mommies. Super capable people making a consicious decision. If you are not in the game you fall behind in experience. My cousin,male, is a stay at home dad and decided to back to his job. Guess what, the people that remained are 5 years ahead of him because, they had more experience and learned more thus got ahead.
But on a few occasions I have seen capable women overlooked because of the buddy network. Nothing maliscious just clueless management not paying attention to the talent. Shame on them.
And there’s nothing wrong with people making life choices to pull back on a career to focus on family. Unfortunately this stuff shows up in the compensation statistics and the more mathematically challenged women’s rights advocates pull out the “women make $.75 for every dollar a man makes” statistic, as blatant proof of discrimination against women in the workplace.
Google “Simpson’s Paradox” for some interesting reading on lawyers (and others) misinterpreting statistics.
Extortion and racketeering have always been illegal. It shouldn’t have taken a supreme court ruling to throw this one out.
Huh?
It is an analogy Younin. Attorneys recruit large numbers for frivolous class actions (frivolous for the majority of the plaintiffs) in a concerted coordinated effort to extort money from deep pocket corporations. Class actions are more expensive than chasing ambulances but one verdict can set up an attorney for life while returning a pittance to those few who actually suffer damages.
Are you saying this is one of those cases?
I didn’t say it – the Supreme Court said it: “It accepted Wal-Mart’s argument that the female employees in different jobs at 3,400 different stores nationwide and with different supervisors do not have enough in common to be lumped together in a single class-action lawsuit”
This may or may not be one of those cases, but I believe one of the primary requisites for filing a class action suit should be that the members of the class have suffered significant damages and that they will be justly compensated for those damages.
It sickens me to hear about thousands of customers getting a $1.80 credit on their next cell phone bill or a coupon for a dollar off a box of tissue while the lawyers who institued the suit get paid millions. Or trying to include me in a class action because my office may have received a handful of unsolicited fax messages that cost me nothing except for the paper they were printed on.
The decision makes sense to me and I think the valid claimaints will still get what is due.
This makes perfect sense. There’s just no way that the corporation has liability and management capability to spawn a common factor regarding all the women in 1,000,000 positions. This seems like someone trying to make a play at statistics, but correlation does not equate to causation. In this case it just so happened to work out that the women were in the position they were in. There is no common ground causing it (other than possibly gender bias, which just happens sometimes, suing isn’t going to fix it).
I worked with a female attorney for over 2 years. She struggled with the correlation vs causation concept. Actually, it was less of a struggle and more of a “I don’t wanna hear it”.
I think many people struggle with correlation and causation and think it is BS. For those of you who have read Freakonomics, there is a danger of ignoring both concepts.
My own experience – I worked for more women than men. I have worked in a few industries. What I see is things are getting better but the glass ceiling also is put in place by some of the women. I have friends and former bosses decide they prefer to be full time mommies. Super capable people making a consicious decision. If you are not in the game you fall behind in experience. My cousin,male, is a stay at home dad and decided to back to his job. Guess what, the people that remained are 5 years ahead of him because, they had more experience and learned more thus got ahead.
But on a few occasions I have seen capable women overlooked because of the buddy network. Nothing maliscious just clueless management not paying attention to the talent. Shame on them.
And there’s nothing wrong with people making life choices to pull back on a career to focus on family. Unfortunately this stuff shows up in the compensation statistics and the more mathematically challenged women’s rights advocates pull out the “women make $.75 for every dollar a man makes” statistic, as blatant proof of discrimination against women in the workplace.
Google “Simpson’s Paradox” for some interesting reading on lawyers (and others) misinterpreting statistics.