No Power for the Little Guy: What the Supreme Court decision in the Wal-Mart class-action suit means for the future of exploitative businesses

The United States Supreme Court ruled today that a group of over 1 million women suing Wal-Mart together on grounds of discrimination based on gender failed to meet the qualifications of a class. The court, of course, did not rule on whether or not the women had in fact been discriminated against but only that they could not reasonably assert status as a class of people.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority in the 5-4 decision, wrote that the women could not demonstrate that they would all "receive a common answer to the question why was I disvaored." A key part element of this decision was the decentralization of Wal-Mart personnel decisions. Because Wal-Mart's hiring and promotions are left to the discretion of its branch managers, the court determined that the plaintiffs couldn't lay claim to the title of class.

This ruling means that women filing discrimination charges against Wal-Mart must now do so individually, which leaves them with a much lower possibility of ever receiving restitution. Individuals filing claims against big corporations (in this case the world's biggest) are almost always at an enormous financial disadvantage. The chances of finding a lawyer capable of taking on corporate big-wigs is slim. And this is exactly the reason why class-action lawsuits exist in the first place. If these women file individual cases against Wal-Mart the legal fees will rack up at a frenzied pace, one which they cannot afford. By filing a class-action suit, they can pool their resources to fight the same monster that aggrieves them all.

But the damage of this Supreme Court decision goes far beyond its effect on women pursuing class-action lawsuits. As with the Citizens United ruling last year, this decision has drastic implications for the power of the individual in an increasingly corporate-dominated world. When individuals who suffer the same treatment at the hands of a corporation must pursue those claims individually, it becomes nearly impossible for them to receive restitution. The consequence is that corporations will be free to treat their employees however they like so long as it is not deemed systematic.

Of course, it is no surprise that a court with Clarence Thomas on it would against a group of women. The man is among the most high-profile misogynists in the country. His confirmation hearing was mired by multiple allegations of sexual harassment, which he referred to as a "high-tech lynching." At a time when Justice Thomas is already being questioned about his ethical behavior while on the court, it seems an appropriate time to revisit this instance. If Thomas has no respect for women, it would have seemed appropriate for him to recuse himself. Of course, for that to happen, he would have to have a modicum of dignity, which he clearly does not.

So we can add discrimination against women to the laundry list of reprehensible actions and characteristics of Wal-Mart that go unpunished. Driving down the cost of labor in third-world countries where wages are already below the poverty level; preventing Americans living below the poverty level on their wage bills from collecting government benefits; prohibiting their employees from collectively bargaining; failing to provide their employees with adequate healthcare; destroying small business, thereby contributing to the great divergence; having four members of the Walton family in the top-ten wealthiest Americans and refusing to join Bill Gates and Warren Buffett in committing to donate half of their wealth to charitable causes. A despicable enterprise it is indeed.