The Word - Too Big to Nail

  • Aired:  06/28/11
  •  | Views: 32,423

The Supreme Court throws out a class action lawsuit brought against Wal-Mart by its female employees, setting a precedent for gender-equal powerlessness against corporations. (4:03)

NATION, CLASS ACTION LAWSUITS

ARE SO DESTRUCTIVE TO OUR

COUNTRY.

THEY CRIPPLED OUR NATION'S ONCE

THRIVING ASBESTOS INDUSTRY.

NOW THOSE POUR ASBESTOS RANCHERS

ARE OUT OF WORK.

AND THEY NEEDED THOSE JOBS THEY

HAVE A LOT OF MEDICAL BILLS TO

PAY.

THERE'S A NEW GO LIAGE UNDER

ASSAULT FROM A GANG OF BLOOD

THIRSTY DAVIDS AND IT BRINGS US

TO TONIGHT'S WORD: TOO BIG TO

NAIL.

WAL-MART FACES A CLASS ACTION

LAWSUIT FROM 1.5 MILLION FEMALE

EMPLOYEES ALLEGING YEARS OF

GENDER DISCRIMINATION.

ACCORDING TO THE PLAINTIFFS,

WOMEN MAKE UP 70% OF WAL-MART'S

HOURLY EMPLOYEES BUT ONLY HOLD A

THIRD OF MANAGEMENT JOBS PLUS

THE FEMALE MANAGERS EARN $16,000

LESS THAN THEIR MALE

COUNTERPARTS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE WOMEN ARE

UPSET.

WALL SMART SLASHING COSTS AND

PASSING THE SAVINGS ON TO THEM.

[LAUGHTER]

IF THEY LOST THE SUIT, WAL-MART

WOULD HAVE OWED MORE THAN $1

BILLION IN BACK PAY.

TO COVER THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO

RAISE THE PRIZE ON EVERYTHING

INCLUDING DR. THUNDER, THEIR

DR. PEPPER KNOCKOFF.

[LAUGHTER]

NOW, MAYBE -- MAYBE THESE WOMEN

WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST,

MAYBE THEY WEREN'T.

WE'LL NEVER KNOW BECAUSE THE

SUPREME COURT UNDERSTOOD THE

REAL ISSUE HERE AND DID THE

RIGHT THING.

>> THE SUPREME COURT THREW OUT

THE CASE RULING THAT THE CLASS

WAS TOO VARIED.

WAL-MART'S 1.5 MILLION FEMALE

EMPLOYEES QUOTE "HELD A

MULTITUDE AFTER DIFFERENT JOBS

AT DIFFICULT LEVELS FOR VARIABLE

LENGTHS OF TIMES IN STORES

SPRINKLED ACROSS 50 STATES."

>> Stephen: GOOD POINT.

THE WAL-MART IS IN FLORIDA IS

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE

WAL-MART IN ARKANSAS.

JIMMY, I THINK YOU HAVE THOSE

TWO MIXED UP.

THERE YOU GO.

[LAUGHTER]

THE POINT IS: IT'S NOT THE

SINGLE LARGEST PRIVATE EMPLOYER

IN THE UNITED STATES REPEATEDLY

VIOLATING THESE WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

IT'S 3400 COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT

LOCATIONS INDIVIDUALLY VIOLATING

THEIR RIGHTS IN DIFFERENT UNIQUE

WAYS.

[LAUGHTER]

IN FACT, EACH SEXUAL

DISCRIMINATION IS LIKE AN

INDIVIDUAL SNOWFLAKE.

BESIDES, WAL-MART AS A WHOLE

CAN'T BE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE

WAL-MART'S LEAD ATTORNEY THE

COMPANY -- QUOTE -- "HAS A VERY

STRONG POLICY AGAINST

DISCRIMINATION AND IN FAVOR OF

DIVERSITY."

IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE EMPLOYEE

MANUAL NEXT TO EMPLOYEES MUST

WASH HANDS.

IF YOU ARE ONE OF THESE WOMEN,

DON'T WORRY, THE COURT SAYS IT'S

STILL OKAY FOR YOU TO SUE

WAL-MART.

JUST BE SURE YOU HIRE THE BEST

LEGAL TEAM AN $8 AN HOUR CASHIER

CAN BUY.

[LAUGHTER]

BECAUSE THANKS TO THE SUPREME

COURT, YOU WILL HAVE TO SUE THEM

AS AN INDIVIDUAL, BUT THE $420

BILLION CORPORATION GETS TO

FIGHT YOU AS A TEAM.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT, FOLKS, NOW

THAT I THINK OF IT THAT DOESN'T

SEEM FAIR.

IF WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO GANG UP

ON THE CORPORATIONS THEN THE

INDIVIDUALS SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED

TO SUE AT ALL BUT WHAT IS AN

INDIVIDUAL BUT A GANG OF GREEDY

ORGANS?

IF WOMEN MAKE ON AVERAGE 75% OF

WHAT A MAN MAKES, THEN ONLY THE

258% OF HER -- 258% OF HER --

25% OF HERE DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO

SUE.

SAME FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT.

ONLY THE HARASSED PART OF A

WOMAN'S BODY SHOULD HAVE LEGAL

STANDING.

I SAY BRAVO SUPREME COURT FOR

TRULY GRANTING SEAL EQUALITY IN

THE WORK PLACE BECAUSE

Loading...