Sunday, April 3, 2011


It is an extension of the tradition established by the concept of "too big to fail or to be effectively regulated" that was applied to big banks and big Wall Street concerns. Recently, we were introduced to the theory of "too rich to silence" with the ruling permitting corporations unfettered ability to control the political discussions. Now, the newest entry on the horizon is "too big to be sued". It is a world where David and his slingshot don't stand a chance.("When a Lawsuit is Too Big")

The 1.5 million women employed by Wal-Mart, who now speak as one against a pattern of discrimination against them in wages and promotion, are in danger of losing their collective voice. The justices on the Supreme Court, in their questions, raised concerns about application of class action principles to such a large and unwieldy situation. How can damages properly be assessed, when as even counsel for plaintiff admits, Wal- Mart's record keeping was so bad that it does not permit easy application? How can so many different situations all fit under one ruling? It is the form over substance argument that could well leave the biggest of them all effectively insulated against liability.

The Court also asked, if the de facto discrimination that existed here, was no different in relative per cent, from all the other big corporate players, can it be concluded then that all these corporations could be compelled to answer to Wal-Mart lawsuits? In that query one can see behind the curtain. The words were phrased in a way that implicitly questioned the sanity and the audacity of those who would challenge the most powerful among us. It is a difficult time to be the little person in a world where everything seems too big to take on.

No comments: