class actions, disabled rights, copyright, attorneys general, online speech, law schools, obesity, New York, mortgages, legal blogs, safety, CPSC, pharmaceuticals, patent trolls, ADA filing mills, international human rights, humor, hate speech, illegal drugs, immigration law, cellphones, international law, real estate, bar associations, Environmental Protection Agency, First Amendment, insurance fraud, slip and fall, smoking bans, emergency medicine, regulation and its reform, dramshop statutes, hotels, web accessibility, United Nations, Alien Tort Claims Act, lobbyists, pools, school discipline, Voting Rights Act, legal services programs
   
   
 
   

FORUM

« Rule 11 reform clears House | Hayek and the common law, reconsidered »

September 15, 2004


Examiner piece

I have a column in today's San Francisco Examiner discussing the gender discrimination class action cases against Wal-Mart and Costco. Many of my arguments will be familiar to our readers who saw my earlier postings on the Wal-Mart case (Aug. 16, Jul. 8, Jul. 2). See also our editor's comments Jun. 29, and his links to further commentaries here and here.

Posted by James R. Copland at 12:48 PM | TrackBack (1)



categories:
Class Actions
Employment Law









 

 

Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.