Sometimes business students wonder why we are learning about constitutional law, which seems like it is all about individual rights. Although we do focus on individual rights, the constitution is important for businesses too. This Supreme Court has been particularly interested in business issues, and by all accounts has ruled in business’s favor in most cases. A recent study showed that this court is the most pro-business since World War II.
The Court’s decisions regarding businesses range from Citizens United, which granted First Amendment rights to corporations, to Wal-Mart, which made it more difficult to certify a class action lawsuit. In Wal-Mart, the Court threw out a class of women that had sued Wal-Mart for gender discrimination, essentially ruling that they didn’t have enough in common to bring their claims together. This year, the Court reaffirmed Wal-Mart in a case involving Comcast subscribers. A group of subscribers wanted to ban together in a class action against the cable company, asking for $875 million in damages. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs could bring the claim individually, but didn’t have enough in common to sue together.
Why does the ability to bring a class action matter? The individual plaintiff can only win so much in damages against Comcast, so plaintiff lawyer’s can’t take on all the litigation expenses. Therefore, the Court’s limits on class actions are a boon to large consumer product or service companies, who will likely see far fewer lawsuits. Critics of the Court’s decisions argue that the limits on class action will mean complete lack of access to the judicial system for most consumers.
The media and politicians pay a lot of attention to the political leanings of potential justices. This Court shows that perhaps what the media should be paying attention to is how pro-business the judge has been.
One Comment
Peter England posted on May 7, 2013 at 12:59 am
I think the court has been ruling to much in favor of business lately, especially in the cases listed above. The women of Wal-Mart should not have to prove any other similarities besides that fact that they are all women. The court is narrowing the focus too much and might inevitably lead to no more class actions against business.
When going against such a large company, class actions allow plaintiffs to avoid individual lawyer fees, which is a luxury the court is taking away. I think they should at least come up with a compromise that states if a company is large enough, either measured by employees or capital, that class action groups should not have to prove the same amount of similarities as groups that file claims against smaller corporations. This might help consumers gain more access to the judicial system. Also, if news stations were to broadcast every business victory, it might prompt change. However, I doubt that’s going to happen.