Obama Administration Sides With Wal-Mart Workers

[bluestateguy]

Now can the people who were whining about Obama being "sexist" please cork it? This just proves that policies matter most, not who he invites to give a prayer at the Inauguration.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aqqY2CP8o.Aw&refer=home

March 19 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration sided with women suing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for discrimination, urging a federal appeals court to let the current and former workers sue as a group and proceed with the biggest sex-bias case in U.S. history.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, weighing in on the lawsuit for the first time since it was filed in 2001, rejected Wal-Mart’s argument that as many as 2 million workers shouldn’t be allowed to seek back pay and punitive damages as a group because that would violate the company’s right to defend itself against each worker’s claims before a jury.

That position would prevent the government from ever seeking punitive damages from companies with a pattern of discrimination and interfere with the EEOC’s ability to obtain redress for violations of Title VII, the federal law that prohibits discrimination, said Barbara Sloan, an EEOC attorney, in a filing with a federal appeals court in San Francisco.

“If Wal-Mart’s arguments were accepted, it could effectively preclude a claim for punitive damages in most if not all Title VII pattern-or-practice cases including those brought by the Commission,” Sloan wrote. “It would be ‘nonsensical’ to prevent victims of particularly egregious discrimination from proceeding collectively.”

more

[liberal N proud]

1. K&R

[tbyg52]

2. I'll rec, but I still reserve the right to whine.... ;-> nt

[jberryhill]

3. Hmmm.....

Gee, I thought that because Michelle had been on the board of a company that sold products to Wal-Mart, the Obamas were supposed to be "pro Wal-Mart" if I recall that particular smear...

[LiberalFighter]

4. Wal-Mart has a right to defend itself only from individual claims?

How did they come up with that argument?

Did they forget that the courts can consolidate claims if they so choose in an effort to reduce the work load on the courts?