George Miller blasts SCOTUS’ Walmart decision

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that invalidated a class-action lawsuit brought against Walmart by women from across the country alleging years of discrimination in pay and promotions is a travesty, argues Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez.

“Today’s ruling from the right wing Roberts court is another blow to a woman’s right to fair pay and fair treatment on the job. There is no place in this country for a business to pay women less or promote them less because of their gender,” Miller, the House Education and the Workforce Committee’s ranking Democrat, said in a news release.

“Americans have come to know the phrase ‘too big to fail’ when it comes to our nation’s big banks. Today, the Supreme Court said that women’s efforts to join together nationwide to seek justice against a powerful corporation can be so big they must not be allowed to succeed. This ruling underscores the need for Congress to strengthen our civil rights laws, especially when it comes to ensuring equal pay for equal work, by enacting measures like the Paycheck Fairness Act,” Miller said. “Nondiscrimination is not just a moral issue. In this economy, with family budgets stretched so thinly, no breadwinner can afford to have her pay reduced or her career ladder cut short because she simply happens to be a woman.”

Walmart, of course, is pleased with today’s ruling and believes the court made the right decision.

“Walmart has had strong policies against discrimination for many years. The Court today unanimously rejected class certification and, as the majority made clear, the plaintiffs’ claims were worlds away from showing a companywide discriminatory pay and promotion policy,” Gisel Ruiz, executive vice president of people for Walmart U.S., said today. ““By reversing the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the majority effectively ends this class action lawsuit. Walmart has a long history of providing advancement opportunities for our female associates and will continue its efforts to build a robust pipeline of future female leaders.”

The case’s plaintiffs include some East Bay Walmart employees. Read more on the ruling here.

Josh Richman

Josh Richman covers state and national politics for the Bay Area News Group. A New York City native, he earned a bachelor’s degree in journalism from the University of Missouri and reported for the Express-Times of Easton, Pa. for five years before coming to the Oakland Tribune and ANG Newspapers in 1997. He is a frequent guest on KQED Channel 9’s “This Week in Northern California;” a proud father; an Eagle Scout; a somewhat skilled player of low-stakes poker; a rather good cook; a firm believer in the use of semicolons; and an unabashed political junkie who will never, EVER seek elected office.

  • Elwood

    Another blast of wildly indignant bloviation from Georgie Porgie.

    As if anyone cares what he thinks about anything.

    But where is Baba Booboo?

  • John W

    Darn! There goes my plan for a class action suit against all employers on behalf of all bald men who have been, or may have been the victims of follicular discrimination.

  • Publius

    36 years and still ticking. The pure hatred for Wal Mart (one of Americas largest employers) displayed by lefties like George, drives the anti job creating policies that are destroying the very fabric of our country. California is a perfect example of this self destructive perception.

  • Doug

    Socialism writ large, by George.

    Of course it’s discrimination that I’m not paid the same wage for my job as the woman next to me. It’s not my fault that I don’t have the same education or experience or drive or commitment or skill set or availability or tenure or NEGOTIATING ABILITY.

  • P. D’Antonio

    This lawsuit failed primarily because of the many states where Wal-mart has a presence, there were no plaintiffs from several of those states. We need to know what those contented states are doing differently than the California that exploits all women.

  • RR, Senile Columnist

    Re:#5 The lawsuit failed because you argued for the plaintiffs.