Yesterday's Wall Street Journal editorial page contained an item by Steven Malanga titled "Class Action? Third Aisle to the Left." It's an opinion piece about the sexual discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart which was just given class action status by a federal judge in San Francisco. In it, Mr. Malanga provides a thorough Fisking of the case and the law firm representing the plaintiffs. (The WSJ piece was adapted from a City Journal article titled The Tort Plague Hits Wal-Mart - A federal judge dignifies a flimsy claim.)
One sentence struck a cord with me:
To gin up this argument the lawyers rely on anything they can get their hands on that purportedly shows that Wal-Mart's "culture" is hostile to women, including the fact that Sam Walton used to take his top managers quail hunting once a year—an activity, the suit contends, that men are more comfortable with than women.
If the plaintiffs' lawyers are contending that men or more comfortable at a quail hunt than women, then that contention itself is demeaning and discriminatory. Women represent the fasting growing demographic of new participants in shooting sports. Readers of these pages know that some local individuals recently conducted a Women on Target program to introduce women to recreational shooting. The first clinic dealt with handguns, and the second clinic involved rifles. If there is enough interest in shotguns, then another clinic will involve shooting shotguns. But, this ain't San Francisco, and they may be a little bit behind the times about those sorts of things out there.
Now, I am not familiar with the facts of the lawsuit. The handful of original plaintiffs may have actually suffered from discrimination because they were female. But, the tort system for so long has provided a way for some people to mine for gold in the courthouse especially when they've got a company as successful as Wal-Mart in their sights.
Comments