<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Law, fairness, and Wal-Mart v. Dukes	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:44:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: July 12 roundup		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/comment-page-1/#comment-123881</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[July 12 roundup]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:44:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=23468#comment-123881</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Not for first time, Dahlia Lithwick misrepresents Wal-Mart case [Ponnuru, Whelan, earlier here and here] [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Not for first time, Dahlia Lithwick misrepresents Wal-Mart case [Ponnuru, Whelan, earlier here and here] [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: William nuesslein		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/comment-page-1/#comment-123140</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[William nuesslein]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=23468#comment-123140</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I was pleased that the ridiculous theory of the case was rejected by all of the justices. But a danger pierced my heart when Justice Breyer sided with Justice Ginsberg and the other girls in their view of discrimination against women. The 59 cents for women vs 1 dollar foe men (It&#039;s now more than75 cents.)   was explained decades ago. It is amazing that such professionals, Justices on the Supreme Court, could be so ignorant.

A manager who fairly values  his potential hires has a competitive advantage over managers who do not.  Statistical results, such as funding for women athletes vs men athletes reflect more the fact  that women and men were subjected to different selective pressures during their evolution. That mothers suckle youngsters, not fathers, has nothing to do with the raising of boys.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was pleased that the ridiculous theory of the case was rejected by all of the justices. But a danger pierced my heart when Justice Breyer sided with Justice Ginsberg and the other girls in their view of discrimination against women. The 59 cents for women vs 1 dollar foe men (It&#8217;s now more than75 cents.)   was explained decades ago. It is amazing that such professionals, Justices on the Supreme Court, could be so ignorant.</p>
<p>A manager who fairly values  his potential hires has a competitive advantage over managers who do not.  Statistical results, such as funding for women athletes vs men athletes reflect more the fact  that women and men were subjected to different selective pressures during their evolution. That mothers suckle youngsters, not fathers, has nothing to do with the raising of boys.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Welcome Philadelphia Inquirer readers		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/comment-page-1/#comment-123101</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Welcome Philadelphia Inquirer readers]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Jun 2011 12:04:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=23468#comment-123101</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] about Wal-Mart v. Dukes here, here, and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] about Wal-Mart v. Dukes here, here, and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Radio today: Fox stations, WBAL		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/comment-page-1/#comment-123076</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Radio today: Fox stations, WBAL]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:09:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=23468#comment-123076</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] Mitchell IV) show on Baltimore&#8217;s WBAL, scheduled for 1:35. More on the Dukes decision here and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Mitchell IV) show on Baltimore&#8217;s WBAL, scheduled for 1:35. More on the Dukes decision here and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ron Miller		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2011/06/law-fairness-and-wal-mart-v-dukes/comment-page-1/#comment-123070</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Miller]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 01:21:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=23468#comment-123070</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&quot;But it’s not — and we should be glad lawyers at every big company aren’t yet insisting that every local HR decision be sent to a distant headquarters for fear of liability.&quot;

I agree with this. The complaint contradicted itself, too, claiming that there was systemic discrimination while it also let local operations run amok.   Logically, these would seem mutually exclusive arguments.  Pleadings can be plead in the alternative to some extend, certainly.  But I think this came back to haunt them.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;But it’s not — and we should be glad lawyers at every big company aren’t yet insisting that every local HR decision be sent to a distant headquarters for fear of liability.&#8221;</p>
<p>I agree with this. The complaint contradicted itself, too, claiming that there was systemic discrimination while it also let local operations run amok.   Logically, these would seem mutually exclusive arguments.  Pleadings can be plead in the alternative to some extend, certainly.  But I think this came back to haunt them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
