VOA慢速英语:A Big Ruling for Wal-Mart in Sex-Discrimination Case

In the American legal system, people generally bring civil claims as individuals. But if a lot of people have similar claims, they may try to bring a class action lawsuit.
在美国的法律体系中，人们普遍以个人身份进行民事诉讼。但是如果许多人有类似的要求，他们可以尝试提出集体诉讼。

Michael Dorf is a law professor at Cornell University.
Michael Dorf是康奈尔大学的教授。

MICHAEL DORF: "A class action is a procedural device under US law that allows a large group of people to bring their individual claims together as a group."
Michael Dorf：“集体诉讼根据美国法律规定的一种程序上的策略，可以允许一大群人将自己的诉求作为一个整体来处理。”

But groups need permission to bring a class action, and that can be denied. That happened this week to a million and a half current and former employees of America's largest private employer. The women accuse Wal-Mart of discriminating against female employees in its stores. But the United States Supreme Court voted to block a huge class action against Wal-Mart in federal court.
但是这些人要进行集体诉讼必须获得批准，该请求可能会被驳回。本周，美国最大的私有雇主的150万名现任和前任员工就发生了这种情况。这些女性指控沃尔玛歧视女性员工。但是美国最高法院进行了投票，否决了在联邦法庭对沃尔玛进行集体诉讼。

The women were seeking billions of dollars. They say men were offered more jobs and more chances to move up in the company. They accuse Wal-Mart of violating part of a federal law, the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four.
这些女雇员提出数十亿美元的赔偿。她们说，在沃尔玛，男性有更多的薪水和更多的晋升机会。她们指控沃尔玛触犯了联邦法律，1964年的民权法案的部分规定。

The case started about ten years ago. A federal district court in California agreed that the case could go forward as a class action. Wal-Mart again lost in a federal appeals court. But on Monday Wal-Mart won its appeal in the nation's highest court.
该案件开始于十年前。加利福尼亚地区法院同意该案件作为集体诉讼继续进行。沃尔玛在联邦上诉法庭再次败诉。但是周一，沃尔玛在全国最高法庭的上诉中获胜。

Professor Dorf -- who was not involved in the case -- says the justices disagreed about whether there was a "common question."
Dorf教授并未参与该案件，他表示，法官不认可这起集体诉讼中的女雇员们存在共性。

MICHAEL DORF:  "A common question, according to the court, is the sort of question which the plaintiffs can prove and thereby go a long way to winning the case."
MICHAEL DORF：“据法院表示，共同的问题是指原告可以证明，因此可以一直赢得该案件的胜诉的问题。”

He says most of the justices found that Wal-Mart was not being accused of one kind of discrimination or one policy, but many different acts.
他说，大部分法官发现，沃尔玛并没有被指控存在同种歧视或者政策，而是许多不同的行为。

MICHAEL DORF: "The key to being able to bring a class action here and the issue that divided our Supreme Court was whether all of these different claims -- by over a million people -- had enough in common to justify a single class action.”
MICHAEL DORF：“发起集体诉讼的关键，以及导致美国最高法院产生分歧的争端是，所有这些超过100万人的不同诉讼主张是否存在足够的共性来发起集体诉讼。”

Wal-Mart has a policy barring discrimination. But the women accused the company of unfair policies and permitting bad behavior by some store managers.
沃尔玛有一项禁止性别歧视的政策。但是这些女性员工指控公司的政策不公平，纵容一些商场经理的不良行为。

The court was divided five to four in its ruling. Yet all nine justices agreed that the case could not go forward. The women needed to meet additional legal requirements because they were seeking payment for harm they say was done. All the justices agreed these requirements had not been met.
在裁决过程中，最高法庭9名大法官出现5:4的分歧。然而，所有大法官均赞同该案件不能作为集体诉讼继续进行。这些女性员工必须达到额外的司法要求，因为他们要求沃尔玛对她们受到的伤害作出赔偿。所有大法官认为她们没有满足相关要求。

Boston University law professor Michael Harper says the decision was widely expected. He says the class action failed because it did not target a single action or policy by Wal-Mart. But the ruling does not bar the women from bringing individual cases. They can also seek class actions at the state level.
波士顿大学法律教授Michael Harper表示，该裁决符合人们的普遍预期。他说，这起集体诉讼失败的原因是由于她们没有针对沃尔玛的单一行为或政策。但这次裁决并未禁止这些女雇员单独提起诉讼。她们也还能寻求在州一级法院提起集体诉讼。