The recent Wal-Mart class action decision issued by a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit continues to capture the attention of lawyers and non-lawyers alike. As reported in a recent article published in consumeraffairs.com, featured on DRI Today, plaintiff and defense employment counsel appear to agree that on a legal “Richter” scale, this case is at least a 7.0. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to certify a class of potentially more than 1 million class members promptly triggered a petition from Wal-Mart to the U.S. Supreme Court. Now the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has joined others in asking the high court to intervene and accept the appeal. As the Chamber succinctly declared in a recent statement:
“The Ninth Circuit has opened the door to nothing less than court-sanctioned shakedowns. By denying businesses their fundamental right to defend themselves in court, the Ninth Circuit leaves them with a harsh choice: either settle meritless lawsuits, or potentially face financial ruin.”
DRI has filed an amicus brief as well as part of its ongoing commitment to the fair treatment of defendants in civil litigation. If the Court declines to hear the Wal-Mart appeal or if the case is heard and the 9th Circuit is affirmed, Wal-Mart will be deprived of the basic requirement that a plaintiff prove his or her case and the fundamental right to present a defense to it.
It’s pretty obvious what the horrendous impact of this decision is for larger corporate employers and attorneys who routinely handle class actions. But what are the potential impacts for mid-sized employers, insurers and their counsel. If it stands, will the effects of the Wal-Mart decision trickle down? If so, how? If not, why not?