PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Chamber of Commerce Targets Workers' Families

Miriam Regalado and her fiancé Eric Thompson both worked at North American Stainless. In 2003, after Regalado filed a sex discrimination complaint against the company, it fired her fiancé, Thompson, in retaliation. The Supreme Court is now considering whether Title VII gives Thompson the right to sue the company. While the parties disagree on whether Thompson can sue, they agree that Regalado, the one who was being retaliated against, could sue the company for firing her fiancé.

As noted in a previous blog post, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed an amicus brief taking a far more extreme position: There was no unlawful retaliation in the first place, because the company never altered the working conditions of the woman who filed the initial complaint. A company is completely within its rights to intimidate its workers by firing the family members of anyone who dares assert their rights under Title VII.

Unfortunately, it turns out that the Chamber is not alone. SCOTUSBlog reports that during oral arguments, Justice Scalia actually chided the company's attorney for acknowledging that a company can't retaliate against an employee for exercising her Title VII rights by firing her fiancé.

Congress specifically wrote a prohibition against retaliation into Title VII to ensure that workers would not be bullied or threatened into surrendering the rights guaranteed by that law. Congress recognized that without this protection, the rest of the statute would be meaningless. The Supreme Court has previously made clear that the primary purpose of the anti-retaliation provision is "[m]aintaining unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms."

Perhaps for as long as there have been families, bullies ranging from neighborhood thugs to totalitarian dictators have used the threat of retaliation against loved ones to keep people cowering in fear, afraid to exercise their basic rights. It is hard to imagine a more effective method of neutering Title VII - and keeping American workers too intimidated to exercise their rights.

It is equally hard to imagine that this is not exactly the sort of retaliation that Congress set out to prevent.

No respectable person should support a company's right to keep its workers too terrified to complain when they are illegally discriminated against. Yet that is the position of the corporate titans who run the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This should give local Chambers another reason to separate themselves from the national organization.

PFAW

Justice Department, Civil Rights Division: It gets better

In recent months I’ve written about various contributions to the It Gets Better Project. Dan and Terry. Ellen DeGeneres. President Obama. Secretary Clinton. Today brought a video from the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice.

As you can see:

The Civil Rights Division, and the entire Justice Department, is committed to ending bullying and harassment in schools, and the video highlights the Department’s authority to enforce federal laws that protect students from discrimination and harassment at school because of their race, national origin, disability, religion, and sex, including harassment based on nonconformity with gender stereotypes. The video also features Division employees who share their individual stories and personal messages that a better future awaits youth who may be experiencing bullying or harassment.

PFAW agrees that every student, LGBT or not, has the right to be educated in the same way. Click here for more information.

PFAW

Congress Moves Closer to Passage of DREAM Act

Yesterday, in a 216-198 vote, the House passed the DREAM Act, a measure that lays out a path to citizenship for young adults who were brought to the United States illegally as children, and who graduate from high school with the commitment to attend college or join the military. Today, the Senate took a procedural vote that temporarily delayed action on the measure in order to build more support for its consideration in the coming week.

Michael B. Keegan, President of People For the American Way, issued the following statement:

Until the DREAM Act becomes law, tens of thousands of young Americans will continue to be treated as criminals in the only homes they know. The Senate must follow the House’s example and work quickly to eliminate what is a fundamental injustice in American law. We support Senator Reid’s efforts to gather enough votes to pass DREAM, and urge fair-minded senators to throw aside divisive anti-immigrant politics and act with common sense and compassion.

Calls are still needed to the Senate: 866-996-5161. Here are some talking points from the National Immigration Forum.

Why should your Senators support the DREAM Act?

•    Because the public supports it—70%, according to a recent poll by First Focus.

•    Because the military wants it.  Secretary of Defense Bill Gates recently wrote a letter to the DREAM Act’s sponsor in the Senate in support of the DREAM Act.  Retired Gen. Colin Powell has also spoken publicly in favor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act will help the military meet recruitment goals, because one of the ways students will qualify is to serve in the military.

•    Because taxpayers deserve a return on their investment.  Allowing immigrant students to continue their education and achieve their potential will translate into better jobs and higher tax revenue when these promising young people enter the workforce.  A single-minded focus on enforcement, as proposed by anti-immigrant Members of Congress would deny taxpayers this return on investment, and result in higher deficits, cuts in other programs, or higher taxes to pay to deport these immigrant youth.

Also from the National Immigration Forum, the story behind today’s Senate action.

The Senate vote on a motion to table the DREAM cloture vote, which took place moments ago, reflected a strategic decision to buy time to build more support for the DREAM Act.

If you were watching the vote or saw a headline about it, you may have been puzzled as to why Senate Leader Reid made a motion to table his own cloture motion, and why so many Democrats voted for it.  Why did this happen?

It’s complicated.  Republicans have vowed to block every bill in the Senate until the issues of tax cuts and funding of the government for the current fiscal year are resolved.  Democratic leadership decided they would push back the DREAM vote until these other issues are resolved.  Once the tax cuts and government funding are dealt with, Republicans will not be able to use them as excuses to oppose the DREAM Act.

However: Senator Reid needed “Unanimous Consent” to withdraw his cloture motion and push back the vote.  He did not get it, forcing him to offer a motion to table the cloture vote. 

Procedural trick: By tabling the cloture vote, Democrats will be able to bring the DREAM Act up again in the coming days when the other issues have been resolved.

Bottom line: Our allies in the Senate know that DREAM supporters have momentum coming out of the House victory yesterday.  They want to take the additional time, remove excuses now being made by Republicans, and cultivate more support for DREAM in the Senate.

A real vote on DREAM in the Senate will be scheduled later.  Please continue to contact your Senators and tell them to support the Dream Act.

Here again is the phone number you can call to be patched through to your Senators offices: 866-996-5161.

We will keep you posted as more information becomes available on the schedule for a Senate vote on the DREAM Act.
PFAW

Evolving Media Narrative of the Roberts Court

More and more Americans have noticed the Roberts Court's habit of twisting the law in order to benefit powerful corporations over the rights of individuals. As recently as a year ago, the national dialogue on the Court rarely touched on this issue. But last January's Citizens United decision was so outrageous that it made people see both the Court's previous decisions and its current work through a new lens. Evolving press coverage reflects the changing paradigm in how Americans view the Supreme Court.

For instance, earlier this week, the Supreme Court announced that it had agreed to hear a case of sex discrimination against Wal-Mart and a separate case involving global climate change. Press coverage recognized the common factor in the Court's decisions to hear these very different and unrelated cases.

The Los Angeles Times wrote:

The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear two major appeals from corporate America that seek to block mass lawsuits, one involving a huge sex bias claim against Walmart and the other a massive environmental suit that seeks to hold coal-fired power plants liable for causing global warming.

In both cases, the justices agreed to consider stopping these suits before they can move toward a trial.

Monday's move is only the latest sign that the Roberts Court is inclined to rein in big-money lawsuits against business. The conservative justices have been particularly skeptical of sprawling suits that could run on for years and lead to enormous verdicts.

Under a headline reading "Two Supreme Court Cases to Test Corporate Interests," the Washington Post reported:

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear two major challenges brought by corporate interests, ...

In both cases, corporations are challenging decisions by federal appeals courts that the suits can go forward. They come before a court that traditionally has been sympathetic to business interests, but is sensitive about recent criticism from the left that it favors corporations over consumer and environmental groups.

Time wrote:

Two federal courts have ruled that their suit can proceed as a class action on behalf of between 500,000 and 1.5 million women, but on Monday the Supreme Court announced it would review that decision. It looks suspiciously like another case in which the court's conservative majority will twist a procedural rule to prevent victims of discrimination from getting a fair chance at justice

As Jeffrey Toobin observed in the New Yorker this week:

This is the rule in the current Supreme Court. If there is a human being on one side of the "v." and a corporation on the other, the corporation wins.

The Roberts Court is learning that if you look like a duck, walk like a duck, and quack like a duck for long enough, people will eventually realize that you are, indeed, a duck.

PFAW

Revitalizing Neighborhoods: The YEO Network Tours Baltimore

Last week, People For the American Way Foundation’s Young Elected Officials Network gathered in Baltimore to talk about ways states and municipalities can address the foreclosure crisis and promote neighborhood stabilization. On Saturday, 40 of the elected officials toured Baltimore to find out about creative ways city residents are working to revitalize troubled neighborhoods.

Baltimore's Fox 45 News met up with the group and interviewed Andrew Gillum, the YEO Network's director:

The first stop of the tour was the Whitelock Community Farm in the Reservoir Hill area. Whitelock, on a formerly vacant commercial lot, is tended by neighborhood residents. It sells produce to neighbors and donates food to a local soup kitchen.

 

 Whitelock Farm’s Thor Nelson shows YEOs around the farm’s greenhouse:

 

 In Central Baltimore, an area that had been losing residents…

...became the site of a brand new affordable housing for artists connected to the nearby Maryland Institute College of Art:

Charlie Duff of Jubilee Baltimore, one of the developers behind the project, showed the YEOs around one of the apartments:

Finally, the YEOs visited Load of Fun Gallery, an arts venue in Central Baltimore that uses the graffiti-covered alley behind it to host performances and events:


 

PFAW

Policy Questions at the Supreme Court

At yesterday's oral arguments on Thompson v. North American Stainlessthe case of the fired fiancé – the Justices discussed whether Title VII allows Eric Thompson to sue his employer for firing him in retaliation for a discrimination complaint lodged by his fiancée. Everyone agrees that Title VII prohibits the company from firing her. The Justices of the Supreme Court are trying to figure out if that federal law also protects her fiancé.

The Washington Post reports:

But Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wondered if the betrothed were included, how far would the law extend.

"Does it include simply a good friend?" he asked. "Does it include somebody who just has lunch in the cafeteria every day with the person who engaged in the protected conduct? Somebody who once dated the person who engaged in the protected conduct?"

[The fired employee's attorney] said the person fired would have to prove the intent was to punish the person who complained. And then the person would have to show that the retaliatory action was serious enough to dissuade a reasonable person from filing a complaint.

Justice Antonin Scalia put himself in the role of employer, saying he would want a clear rule on who he "had to treat with kid gloves."

Note that Justices Alito and Scalia are not mechanically calling balls and strikes, as in the severely flawed umpire metaphor then-Judge John Roberts used at his confirmation hearings - and which conservatives have been using since to bamboozle the American public. In interpreting Title VII, they are taking policy considerations into account: How would their interpretation work? How could any line-drawing be justified? How could the needs of employers for clarity be met?

This is exactly what we expect judges to do.

Conservative supporters of Alito and Scalia who repeat the tired "balls and strikes" line simply cannot be taken seriously. They simply use it to mask their extremist, results-oriented viewpoint that no matter what the Constitution and statutes actually say, corporations and powerful special interests should win, while workers, women, gays, immigrants, and liberals should lose.

PFAW

Local Chambers of Commerce Push Back Against U.S. Chamber’s Campaign Mudslinging

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent $75 million to help elect pro-corporate candidates to Congress this year, benefits from the positive image most Americans have of its smaller member organizations—city and county chambers that organize locally run businesses. But now, some of these member organizations are saying they want no part in the U.S. Chamber’s massive attack ad buys on behalf of Republican candidates. From Politico, via Washington Monthly:

“We were getting pounded. We felt here, in central Pennsylvania, that the ads they were running were not professional ads,” said David Wise, president of the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County, which is considering dropping its national membership. “This was not a unifying event. It was divisive.”

More than 40 local chambers issued statements during the midterms distancing themselves from the U.S. Chamber’s campaign — including nearly every major local chamber in Iowa and New Hampshire, key states for the presidential campaign.

Other chambers plan to take the extraordinary step of ending their affiliation with the U.S. Chamber, including the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce in Pennsylvania. Its leaders reported being inundated with angry — and sometimes profanity-laced — telephone calls from people objecting to the U.S. Chamber-backed ads.

Some local chambers were also active in countering the U.S. Chamber’s claims in the run-up to the election. According to Politico, “In Iowa, Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley survived an onslaught of U.S. Chamber attack ads in part because he circulated disclaimers issued by his local chambers.”

Though the U.S. Chamber benefits from the appearance of representing local business associations throughout the country, the numbers show that individual associations and the small businesses they represent hold very little sway over the U.S. Chamber’s national political activities. A New York Times investigation in October found that the U.S. Chamber, which does not have to publically disclose its donors, received half of its 2008 contributions from just 45 donors—large companies like Dow Chemical and Prudential Financial that have strong lobbying interests on Capitol Hill.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC this year allowed companies like Dow and Prudential to funnel money through the U.S. Chamber not only toward lobbying efforts but toward campaign advertising—all while hiding behind the positive image of hundreds of thousands of small businesses who may or may not agree with their legislative priorities. And without strong disclosure legislation, they'll doubtless continue to do so.
 

PFAW

We are now certain that today is the day for the DREAM Act in both the House and Senate. Please keep calling! 866-967-6018 for the House. 866-996-5161 for the Senate.

To assist you in your calls, here are some talking points from the National Immigration Forum.

Why should your Representative support the DREAM Act?

•    Because the public supports it—70%, according to a recent poll by First Focus.

•    Because the military wants it.  Secretary of Defense Bill Gates recently wrote a letter to the DREAM Act’s sponsor in the Senate in support of the DREAM Act.  Retired Gen. Colin Powell has also spoken publicly in favor of the DREAM Act.  The DREAM Act will help the military meet recruitment goals, because one of the ways students will qualify is to serve in the military.

•    Because taxpayers deserve a return on their investment.  Allowing immigrant students to continue their education and achieve their potential will translate into better jobs and higher tax revenue when these promising young people enter the workforce.  A single-minded focus on enforcement, as proposed by anti-immigrant Members of Congress would deny taxpayers this return on investment, and result in higher deficits, cuts in other programs, or higher taxes to pay to deport these immigrant youth.

After the Senate completes its afternoon votes, depending on the outcome, it’s possible that Majority Leader Reid could go back to the FY11 Defense authorization bill. As he has pledged:

We are also going to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell rule. We are going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in America everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed.

Republicans know they do not have the votes to take this repeal out of the Defense authorization bill, so they are holding up the whole bill. But when they refuse to debate it, they also hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families, equipment such as MRAP vehicles that keep our troops safe, and other critical wartime efforts in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts around the world.

We’ve been waiting 17 years for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But our troops are also waiting. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Arizona, Immigration, and the Supreme Court

Stepping into the increasingly volatile and contentious debate over immigration, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments tomorrow on how far the state of Arizona can go to prevent employers from hiring undocumented aliens. The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.

The case involves a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire undocumented aliens by suspending or revoking most of their state licenses. The Chamber of Commerce argues that the law is preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).

IRCA prohibits the hiring of undocumented aliens and sets forth procedures employers must follow before hiring someone and the sanctions they will incur for violating the law. Most importantly, IRCA expressly preempts local and state laws creating sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws).

It is the "licensing and similar laws" clause that is crucial in this case, because the draconian punishment set forth in the Arizona law is the suspension and revocation of "licenses," a term defined so broadly in the statute that it even includes a company's articles of incorporation.

The Court will also decide whether Arizona can lawfully require employers in the state to use a federally-administered electronic employment verification database called E-Verify - a database that federal law expressly makes voluntary.

Agreeing with the Chamber that the Arizona law is unconstitutional are the Obama Administration and an array of civil rights groups (such as the National Council of La Raza and the Anti-Defamation League).

When the Court issues its ruling next year, it may give clues on how it might rule on Arizona's more recent "your papers please" law, which has yet to work its way up to the Court.

PFAW

Majority Leader Reid says Senator McCain is the Lucy to America’s Charlie Brown

On November 16, 1952, Lucy yanked the football out from under Charlie Brown.

Peanuts

Today, Senator McCain is doing the same to America. Majority Leader Reid:

Mr. President, there is a recurring gag in the comic strip ``Peanuts'' with which we are all familiar. Charlie Brown is getting ready to kick a field goal. Lucy is holding the ball while Charlie runs up to the ball. At the last second, Lucy pulls the ball away. Charlie Brown flies into the air, comes crashing back down, and falls flat on his back. We have all seen this time and time again. But what makes this gag funny is the same thing that made it famous. It wasn't so much that Lucy was tricking Charlie Brown; it was that it kept happening over and over. Charlie Brown kept being tricked.

It is obvious by now that our Republican friends have drawn their political strategy from this cartoon.

[. . .]

Finally, the Senator from Arizona, his party's nominee for President last election, has given a dizzying defense of don't ask, don't tell--an obsolete, embarrassing, and discriminatory policy that weakens our military and offends our values. First, Senator McCain said he seriously would consider repealing it if the military leadership thought we should. When the military leadership said it should be repealed, he pulled away the football. Then Senator McCain said he would need to see a study from the Pentagon. When the Pentagon produced a study saying repeal would have no negative impact, he pulled away the football again. And for his latest trick, he said yesterday that he opposed repealing don't ask, don't tell, a proposal that would be a great stride forward for both equality and military readiness, because of the economy. I repeat: The senior Senator from Arizona said he couldn't support repealing don't ask, don't tell because of the economy. I have no idea what he is talking about, and no one else does either.

Senator McCain is essentially telling us to lie here for the rest of the day. But we know that we cannot and will not spend another 58 years trying to kick that football and make the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell a reality. The Senate must act posthaste on the FY11 Defense authorization bill. Take care of repeal. Take care of our troops. Take care of our nation’s defense.

Don’t let anyone tell you that neither the will nor the time are available. Show the Senate that they are. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Yesterday, Majority Leader Reid gave a floor speech about the Senate’s lame duck agenda.

 

Mr. President, as far as lameduck sessions of the Senate go, our agenda is rather ambitious, and the session itself is relatively long. It did not have to be this way. We have tried many times this Congress to tackle each of the priorities on our agenda. Each time we have tried, the minority has tried to shut down the Senate. Republicans ground the Senate to a halt and forced endless hours of inactivity. That is why we were here voting on Sunday--on Saturday; I am sorry. Thank goodness it was not on Sunday. That is why we will still be here another few weeks.

We have a long to-do list. But these priorities are not mere leftovers. They are critical to our economy and our national security, to our families and our country's future, and we will resolve them before we adjourn.

[. . .]

Obstruction has consequences. None of the issues on this long list is new. Neither is the minority's effort to keep the Senate from working and keeping Senators from doing our jobs.

It is time to roll up our sleeves--not dig in our heels. My hope for the final weeks of this year is that Republicans finally will realize we all have much more to gain by working together than working against each other.

That got me thinking about Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Its repeal constitutes just 4 pages (203-207) of the 854-page FY11 Defense authorization bill. That means GOP obstruction is holding up a bill over just 0.47% of its text.

So what’s in the other 99.53%?

As Majority Leader Reid points out:

We are also going to repeal the discriminatory don't ask, don't tell rule. We are going to match our policy with our principles and finally say that in America everyone who steps up to serve our country should be welcomed.

Republicans know they do not have the votes to take this repeal out of the Defense authorization bill, so they are holding up the whole bill. But when they refuse to debate it, they also hold up a well-deserved raise for our troops, better health care for our troops and their families, equipment such as MRAP vehicles that keep our troops safe, and other critical wartime efforts in Afghanistan and counterterrorism efforts around the world.

We’ve been waiting 17 years for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. But our troops are also waiting. The Senate must act posthaste on the FY11 Defense authorization bill. Take care of repeal. Take care of our troops. Take care of our nation’s defense.

Don’t let anyone tell you that neither the will nor the time are available. Show the Senate that they are. Click here to contact your Senators, and here for information about this Friday’s rally at the Capitol.

PFAW

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Files Cloture on DREAM Act

Because, thanks to the ongoing GOP obstruction in the Senate, virtually nothing can get done without a time consuming cloture vote, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed cloture late yesterday on the motion to begin debate on the DREAM Act. If passed, the legislation would allow undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children to gain legal status and a path to citizenship if they attend college or join the armed forces.

The Brookings Institution gives a rundown of what the legislation includes:

The Development, Relief and Education of Alien Minors (DREAM) Act would offer conditional citizenship to a specific group of young individuals. To gain conditional status under the DREAM Act one must have entered the United States before the age of 16, been in the country continuously for five years, earned a high school diploma (or GED) and not committed any crimes that would otherwise restrict someone from entering the country. During a six-year period of conditional status, this group will have been required to complete two years in uniformed service or two years enrolled at an institution of higher learning, and must pass a second criminal background check before being considered for full citizenship. It should also be noted that the DREAM Act only applies to young people currently in the country so that it will not encourage additional families to bring children to the U.S. looking for benefits.

The bill seems to have plenty of support. Orrin Hatch, Sam Brownback, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe have all supported it in the past. But when it comes to Republican obstruction, good policy takes a backseat to good politics.

By filing the cloture petition, Reid will be able to hold the vote on cutting off debate and then proceeding to consideration of the bill on Wednesday. We’ll keep you posted as the issue moves forward.

PFAW

Many Opportunities for Corporations at the Court This Term

Now seems as good a time as any to take a brief look at just how many cases are before the Supreme Court this term that threaten to take away people's right to hold giant corporations accountable. The Court is being asked to:

  • Empower retaliation against employees who file discrimination complaints;
  • Prohibit a class-action discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of its 1.5 million women employees;
  • Bar states from using federal nuisance law to hold power companies accountable for the climate damage they are causing;
  • Make it harder for employees to hold their employers accountable for providing inaccurate summaries of major changes in their pensions plans;
  • Demolish class-action suits and cripple state consumer protection laws through corporate-imposed arbitration agreements;
  • Protect pharmaceutical corporations from lawsuits from those who are injured by unsafe child vaccines; and
  • Recognize "personal privacy rights" of corporations.

There are other cases, as well, and their number will increase as the Court continues to accept new cases. It makes one realize just how big an impact the Supreme Court has on all our lives.

PFAW

The Case of the Fired Fiancé

Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Thompson v. North American Stainless, an employment retaliation case that threatens to keep illegally fired employees from holding accountable the companies that fire them.

In 2003, North American Stainless fired Eric Thompson in retaliation against his fiancée, who also worked for the company and had just filed a sex discrimination complaint against it. Such retaliation against an employee seeking to vindicate her rights under Title VII is illegal. So Thompson sued.

Two separate provisions of Title VII are relevant here:

  • First, to remove employees' fear of retaliation, Section 704(a) states that an employer may not "discriminate against any of his employees ... because he has ... made a charge ... under this title."
  • Second, in a provision relating to employment discrimination overall and not just retaliation, Section 706(f )(1) authorizes a person aggrieved by an unlawful employment action to file suit to enforce Title VII.

The firing was designed to retaliate against an employee seeking to vindicate her rights and was therefore clearly an unlawful employment action. Thompson, who lost his job, was undoubtedly aggrieved by this unlawful employment action. There shouldn't be any question that Congress gave him the right to sue.

Yet the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, dominated by nominees of George W. Bush, held otherwise. Ten judges (nine of whom were nominated by Republican presidents, a full seven by George W. Bush) held that Thompson cannot sue because he wasn't the person who was being retaliated against. North American Stainless is asking the Supreme Court to uphold that holding.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed an amicus brief that is even more extreme: There was no unlawful retaliation in the first place, because the company never altered the working conditions of the woman who filed the initial complaint. In the frightening world the Chamber wants us to live in, firing a complaining employee's fiancé, spouse, daughter, etc. is not at all considered unlawful retaliation.

As the Obama Administration points out in its amicus brief supporting the fired employee, the Sixth Circuit opinion ignores the plain language of Title VII. In addition, if upheld, it will have a devastating real-world impact. Most lay people unassisted by lawyers would naturally assume that the person who was fired - not the one who is still employed - should be the one to sue. If the Supreme Court bars suits by the most obvious plaintiffs, the ones who have suffered the most, then many injured parties will in the real world be left without a remedy.

PFAW

Wal-Mart Class Action at Issue

Earlier today, the Supreme Court accepted a high-profile case that will likely have a substantial impact on employees all over the country. Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, is being sued for unlawfully discriminating against its women employees. It is a class-action suit on behalf of the corporate giant's 1.5 million women employees. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the case could proceed as a class action.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Wal-Mart's appeal. As the Washington Post reports:

[The Court] will be looking at the question of whether a single suit is proper when alleging charges of pay discrimination and lack of promotions spread across thousands of stores in every region of the country. ...

Business groups say certification of a class action puts enormous pressure on a company to settle regardless of whether the charges can be proved, because of the cost of the litigation and the potential award at stake. In the case of Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, the amount could be billions of dollars.

But civil rights groups say class-actions are the most effective way of making sure a business ends discriminatory practices and pays a price for its actions.

Large corporations, with resources dwarfing those available to the average individual, clearly benefit when their victims are unable to pool resources through a class action. Indeed, this is not the only case this term where the Supreme Court is being asked to dismantle this vital tool, one that has proved time and again to be the only way to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable.

We will learn this spring whether the Roberts Court will continue its trend of twisting the law in order to benefit powerful corporations over the rights of individuals.

PFAW