On the recordJanuary 8, 2016
I appreciate my colleague for that exhaustive explanation and definition of scope. Common sense just ain't common, so we cannot rely on common sense. I just want to say that the courts already require a plaintiff seeking class action certification to make substantial showings that they have, in fact, been injured. That is our argument, that they have to have the same scope and that we need to reserve the benefits for those at the top so that women who are discriminated against in a firm--we are only concerned with those women who are going to lose the most money because they didn't get a management position. We are not going to be concerned with the women who worked in the janitorial services and were discriminated against. I think that there is a smoking gun here when you hear our opponents make these furious arguments and regale us with definitions of scope, where the courts have already done that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I yield back the balance of my time.
