From the New York Times | When the Supreme Court considers on Tuesday whether hundreds of thousands of women can band together in an employment discrimination suit against Wal-Mart, the argument may hinge on the validity of the hotly disputed conclusions of a Chicago sociologist.
Plaintiffs in the class-action suit, who claim that Wal-Mart owes billions of dollars to as many as 1.5 million women who they say were unfairly treated on pay and promotions, enlisted the support of William T. Bielby, an academic specializing in “social framework analysis.” Get the full story>>
No, the Supreme Court’s decision will probably hinge on its interpretation of F.R.Civ.P. 23.
Of course, I am sure that neither you nor 99.999% of your readers understand that.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning what constitutes a class action suit.
The SCOTUS is hearing the case, and will render its decision because this is a federal question.
(I’m in the 1% club)
Jack, with such a surly attitude I wonder if your surname is off.
All, please read this article, it demonstrates how laywers are the only ones that win with these lawsuits. And get a load of this excerpt from the article:
…a sociologist and lawyer who worked on the American Sociological Association’s brief defending Professor Bielby, said “it is tremendously important that jurors and judges understand what we know about the world.”
This is the worst; conceited academics melts with greedy lawyer.