The Supreme Court dismissing the gender discrimination case against WalMart. TFM.

  1. PGT Beauregard

    Thinking “WalMart” and “TFM” belong together in a sentence that doesn’t include the words “stock” or “liquidate”. NF.

    14 years ago at 8:53 pm
  2. CollegePrepster

    You might want to actually read the opinion. The case wasn’t decided on the merits; the Court simply ruled that the proposed class was too big to be certified. Each individual plaintiff can still bring a case or they can organize into smaller, similarly situated classes.

    14 years ago at 10:36 pm
    1. Pro V1x

      ^actually knowing what’s going on in the world rather then just reading headlines, TFM.

      14 years ago at 9:30 am
    2. Fratlas Shrugged

      The merit of the case is not the important aspect in this instance. Allowing certification would have set a dangerous and unconstitutional precedent. I’m entirely in favor of protecting individual rights, but the class amounted to a group of menopausal thieves hoping for a payday at shareholder expense.

      14 years ago at 9:54 am
    3. BROnonia_Docet

      I actually did read this story, as well as NBC not using “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and apologizing on FOXnews, before I saw it on here. I was being sarcastic. Fucking moron.

      14 years ago at 9:55 am
    4. CollegePrepster

      TSM, actually. The problem with reading just the news story of an opinion is that, most of the time, the writer has no idea what the hell he or she is talking about. My initial comment was to the person who posted the TFM originally. The case wasn’t actually dismissed on its merits and the court did not address the gender discrimination aspect of it. However, obviously it’s an important statement when it comes to the rights of corporations and big businesses. And THAT is a TFM.

      14 years ago at 10:50 am