2. 外语
  3. The employment discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, which the Supreme Court heard last week, is the largest in American hist

The employment discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, which the Supreme Court heard last week, is the largest in American hist

admin2012-05-28  39
问题     The employment discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart, which the Supreme Court heard last week, is the largest in American history. If the court rejects this suit, it will send a chilling message that some companies are too big to be held accountable (负有责任的).
    It began in 1999 after Stephanie Odle was fired when she complained of sex discrimination. As Ms. Odle described in sworn testimony, as an assistant manager she discovered that a male employee with the same title and less experience was making $10,000 a year more than her.
    She complained to her boss, who defended the difference by saying the male had a family to support. When she replied that she was having a baby that she needed to support, the supervisor made her provide a personal budget and then gave her a raise closing just one-fifth the gap.
    The plaintiffs (原告) who have brought a class action on behalf of 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees allege that they, too, faced discrimination in pay and promotion. If Wal-Mart loses, it could owe more than $1 billion in back pay.
    Wal-Mart has tried to end the litigation (诉讼) by arguing that 1.5 million women do not have enough in common to sue for discrimination as a single class under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A federal trial judge said they do. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling, twice.
    But during oral argument last week, conservative justices and liberals to some degree expressed skepticism: Is there enough "cohesion (一致性)" among the women to justify treating them as a single class?
    A brief by 31 professors of civil procedure explains why the women are a suitable class. Their claims meet the core test: They have in common the question of whether Wal-Mart discriminated against them. Meanwhile, the high cost of litigation compared to the low likely individual recoveries would make it hard for the women to proceed any other way.
    The average wage gap each year for every member of the class is around $1,100, too little to give lawyers an incentive to represent them. The best way to judge their rights efficiently and fairly is by recognizing them as a group. That is the purpose of the class-action rule.
    The case record contains 120 sworn statements describing sex discrimination in pay and promotion but also in the work environment: required company fishing trips where women weren’t included on their male peers’ boat; a supposedly revenge-free system for complaints that led to women being fired. The lower courts ruled that this and other evidence provide compelling reasons for the case to move forward.
Conservative justices doubted about whether .
选项 A、the trial judge is partial to the plaintiffs
B、the plaintiffs all work or worked for Wal-Mart
C、the group of plaintiffs should be recognized as a class
D、the plaintiffs have enough evidence against Wal-Mart
答案C
解析 根据题干中的Conservative justices将本题出处定位到第六段。该段提到，但是在上周的口头辩论中，保守派和自由派法官在某种程度上表示了怀疑：这些女性是否存在足够的“一致性”证明她们可以被视为单一阶层?[C]正是对这一质疑的同义转述，其中的thegroup of plaintiffs与the women对应，should be recognized as a class与treating them as a single class对应。[A]是针对expressed skepticism设的干扰项。[B]不是保守派法官质疑的内容。[D]是针对enough“cohesion”设的干扰项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://jikaoti.com/ti/iAvFFFFM
0

大学英语六级

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)