Ford Motors Could Pay Out $77 Million Over Defective Transmissions


For about seven and a half years, consumers
in the United States have been fighting Ford motor company over claims that some of their
vehicles had shotty transmissions that the company failed to fix and failed overall to
address. But there may finally, after seven and a half
years of fighting, be an end in sight. Joining me now to talk about what’s happening
is Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions and Scott this we, we see happen a lot. Right? A lot of these lawsuits are not just super
quick, easy over and done with in a matter of months. Seven and a half years, September of 2012,
is when this first started here against Ford. So take us back to the beginning real quick
with what was going on back then in 2012. What did the consumers complain about? Well, you know, we’ve seen this grow and expand,
so it started off in 2012 with Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta owners saying, hey, we have
a problem with this transmission. It’s kicking back. It’s chugging along and there’s a lot of issues
here. And there was a settlement that was reached
and now it’s been expanded for 2012 to 2016 Ford Focus or 2011 to 2016 Ford Fiestas equipped
with the power shift transmission. Now the settlement was objected to because
the objectors thought that the original settlement was too low. So now years later, after a lot of battling,
Ford has come back and now there’s a $77 million that’s up for grabs. And it’s a great settlement if you had this
problem, because Ford is not only going to reimburse you if you had this problem and
you had to get it fixed. Ford will also, if you returned your car and
you don’t even have your car anymore, you have a shot at getting some cash. There’s actually $25,000 or more for returning
a vehicle that they could have been driving for many years. So there’s a lot of money at, you know, possible
for these Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta owners, if they qualify. And with the way vehicles are, you know, built
today, there’s a very good chance that most of these vehicles are still on the road today. So if you’re driving one of these and you
haven’t necessarily noticed any problems, maybe reach out to the seller of the vehicle. You know, this could be something they had
fixed, maybe they had forgotten about it after all these years. So if you can, if you know who sold you the
vehicle, maybe reach out to them. This could be something that’s very, you know,
pertinent to them if they paid to have this problem fixed and then got fed up and sold
the car anyway. So, you know, something to keep in mind there. I know that’s not something people usually
think of, but you also run into a situation, and I’ve been thinking about this, you know,
obviously this is a transmission issue, transmission problems, one of the most expensive things
on a vehicle when it goes wrong. So what happens and I don’t even know if,
if you know the answer to this because this might seem complicated. Suppose you had somebody who purchased one
of these cars. They had taken it in a couple times to the
shop because the transmission was doing this. It couldn’t get fixed so finally they decided
to sell it and they sell it to somebody who says, well don’t worry, I know how to work
on transmissions. I’ll see if I can fix it. If you had two separate people with that same
vehicle, would they both qualify for a claim if they both spent money on it? Possibly. I know that’s a bit of a hypothetical, but. That’s a very lawyer answer, maybe. But, so the original owner, even if they no
longer own the car, they might qualify for this settlement. They’ll want to take a look to see if they
do once the settlement is approved. The person who, who actually received that
transmission that that car with a faulty transmission and fix it, they might also be able to submit
a claim. So they’ll want to take a look at it. Something that’s interesting about this settlement
is they actually bring in the lemon laws because they had a lot of people that bought these
cars, brought this car back multiple times to the dealer and said, hey, why can’t you
fix this? Well in this settlement they say, hey, we
are actually settling these claims in three months if it’s a lemon law claim. So, you know, if you’re taking this to arbitration
we are getting people either paid out a new car or, you know, those damages taken care
of in, in just three months. Which in the class action world as we know
is huge. So that’s one of the benefits of using a lemon
law attorney if you have a new car that is not being fixed under the factory warranty. But, it’s important to take a look at it and
see if you had this problem, even if you don’t have the car anymore, you might be able to
get some money back. Because that was a big part of the settlement
is making sure that there is millions of dollars above and beyond this $70 million. Because there’s a, there’s an extra 30 million
bucks that could be put into play if they run out of money. So Ford is really doing their best to take
care of their customers. If you had that Ford Focus or Fiesta that’s
included in this with transmission problems, please make sure to, to, to stay tuned with
us and check in because you could have a significant amount of money coming to you. And, do we have any kind of timeline? I know the, the $77 million now has to be
submitted for approval. Do we know about how long that process could
take for approval or rejection of this $77 million proposal? It depends on how busy the judge is. Usually takes around two to three months. Could take a little less, could take a little
more. But that’s what we’d be hoping for is that
the judge will get this reviewed and approved in, in about two to three months. Well, fantastic. And we’ll, we’ll definitely follow up with
story once that happens. Hopefully it will be a positive thing. Hopefully it will be approved and we can explain
to people, tell them where to go, you know, to get their settlements. And until then, folks, I recommend everybody
follow the link in the description of this video. It will take you to this story over at topclassactions.com. Bookmark it, keep an eye on it. There will be updates to this, hopefully in
a positive way and of course, while you’re there, you can also subscribe to the weekly
Top Class Actions newsletter. Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions, thank
you very much for talking with us. You’re welcome. Thanks for your time, Farron.

Trump Has Said 27 Times He Won’t Leave Office After His Term Ends


On at least 27 different occasions since Donald
Trump was sworn in as president. 27 different occasions. He has a joked about staying in office long
after his term ends. Now nearly every one of those times he does
point out. I’m kidding. I’m joking. Sometimes he says, I do it because it makes
the media go crazy, but 27 times, that’s a lot of times to tell the same joke. So at this point we have to start to wonder,
is Donald Trump actually kidding about remaining in office after his term ends? You know, there’s been a lot of speculation
about whether or not Donald Trump is actually going to accept the results of the election
in November. If he loses and maybe he just comes out and
says, no, this is illegitimate. I’m still president. I’m not leaving. Then what happens? People are asking, well, in that particular
instance, Trump’s going to be forced out of office one way or another. Quite possibly physically. The problem is not that he keeps joking about
it or that he may not leave the white house. If he gets booted out, there are people in
place to make sure that he physically leaves the white house and they’re going to make
sure he does that. The problem is his supporters, his supporters
are open to this idea. His supporters love this idea and that’s where
the real danger lies. When you have segments of the population,
no matter how small, who are now saying, we want president for life, just like China has
now, and Trump praised presidentG for declaring himself president for life. He likes that idea. He truly does. And when you have members of the public who
say, I’m okay with this, then those last little bits that were holding this Republic together
start to fall apart. And I think that’s what we’re seeing right
now. Back in December, mid December, Donald Trump’s
given a little speech down in Hollywood, Florida. Um, any mentions maybe I stay longer, right? Maybe I do two terms. Maybe I do two more terms, another eight years,
maybe I do three more terms, right? Wouldn’t that drive them crazy? 12 more years. And after he said 12 more years, that audience
erupted in chance of 12 more years, 12 more years, 12 more years. If Trump was joking, which again, not really
clear if he is, the crowd wasn’t. They liked that idea because they’re a cult. They don’t care about the Constitution. They don’t care about the limits we have in
place on both terms and power of the president of the United States. They view Donald Trump as some sort of godlike
figure that needs to stay up there as as possible. He’s done nothing for them, by the way, and
yet they worship him and they’re fine with destroying this country just to let this con
man have more time in office. It’s not Trump that we need to be worried
about. It’s the crazy people who want him to stay
longer than two terms.

Should We Pay People to Move to Mars? (feat. Nasa)


– Woo, howdy, partner! Hop on board, we’re headin’
out to settle the frontier except this time, the frontier is on another planet.
(mellow twang music) Okay, don’t panic. I’m not really on Mars. Plus. This thing smells funny. (sighs) The point is that
according to the Mars Society, Earth is old news. The real party is here
on the Red Planet, baby! So if our species is
truly going to be in it for the long haul, we gotta
figure out how to live in places like here,
but are you interested? How much longer until we’re
not a single planet species? – Well, I hope that we can
get to Mars in my life time. (mellow music) We’re looking to be in the 2030’s to start the Mars missions timeframe. – That’s Marshall Smith,
and he’s the head director of Human Lunar Exploration
Programs at NASA. His job is to lead the
teams that are working to get humans to the moon by 2024, and then to Mars in the 2030’s. What is moon to Mars,
and why have these plans been expedited?
– This has been in our long term plan for quite awhile. We had a plan that was
to get us to the surface of the moon in ’28, we’ve
accelerated it to ’24. – So NASA’s plan to get back to the moon has been accelerated to 2024
by the order of the President, and from there, they’ll develop
sustainable human presence on the moon by 2028. So in 10 years, when
you look up at the moon, there will be people living there. And after all of that, the
infrastructure developed from these trips will
help NASA get to Mars in our very near future.
– We did Apollo in nine years. And that would probably not have happened if we didn’t have that
commitment from the President and the administration. We’ve got that same commitment
now from the President and the administration to
go forward and expedite, and let’s take the next step.
– Okay, let’s put this into perspective, a trip to the moon could take up to three
days while a trip to Mars can take up to a few months. And the full journey could take astronauts a full three years before
they get back home. A few years ago, the Mars
One Project made news by creating sort of a reality show that planned very literally
to establish a Mars colony by 2032, the only catch
for the participants? It was gonna be a one-way ticket, and once you got there,
it was pretty certain that something at some
point was going to kill you. And probably in a pretty awful way. It’s an interesting idea. Let’s find some brave
pioneers who are willing to take the greatest of all risks. The question is how do you motivate people to make that kind of leap? Well, last time we did
something like this, it was pretty simple. We paid them. A few hundred years ago,
the American frontier wasn’t that different from Mars. It was rugged, it was unpredictable, and there were plenty of
things that could kill you. (upbeat music) (mellow music) – But here’s the key. For the government, it
was essential that lots and lots of people take the risk. So they had to figure
out what sort of award was worth this risk. – The United States government
gave away free or cheap land to encourage settlers to
move and set up homesteads out in the West. Now, we’d be remiss if we didn’t bring up that colonization is a
continually dark chapter in the history of indigenous peoples, from which European
settlers have profited. Mars, as you can guess, is
probably a tougher sell. Farmland? Nope, not yet. Religious freedom? I guess, maybe, if you find a way to build a Mars church or something. And a chance to live however you want. Sure, just don’t take off your helmet or forget to clean your
carbon dioxide scrubbers three times a day. All I’m say is that it’s probably going to take more incentives
than it did last time. Could you see that happening with Mars? In an advent where it’s
like, hey nobody really wants to go out there, potential
death could happen at any point in time. Could you see people
getting large sums of money to possibly go out to Mars to inhabit it? – And you say it’s part of
NASA’s spirit to explore. If Mars is an inhabitable planet, at one point do you
believe, in your opinion, that it would turn from exploration to potential colonization or civilization in NASA’s mission, or would
that never be NASA’s mission and that would take some
outside type of entity to make that happen?
– I don’t know the answer to that question, it’s
a good policy question for people above my pay
grade, but I could tell you that those are the things
that we think about. What are the next steps?
– But NASA doesn’t like using the word colonization. They’re not looking into a
continuous human presence in deep space, but they
are interested in building an infrastructure for private companies to enter into that field. They described it like
building the railroads for settlers to move out West. For you and NASA, what
are we hoping to learn or get out of going to
Mars, like what is the point of the journey?
– We know that there’s flowing water on Mars, we’ve
seen it, we’ve documented it. There are things like Mars quakes. We understand in the geology of Mars as Mars is a planet that was, we think, maybe Earth-like some long time ago. And so, studying that might help us understand the future of Earth. – There’s one other
historical parallel we need to consider here, the last
time there was this much land settled in our country, there
were major players involved, including Britain,
France, Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. And as we know, to the
winner went the spoils. Today, there’s a similarly
complicated power struggle forming in space, with
China, Russia, India, Israel, not to mention the private sector. All doing what they can to
claim a piece of the pie. Last time, the winner would
get to become the ruler of the free world. Tomorrow, maybe the winner will become ruler of the free solar system. – We’ve definitely been working closely with our international partners. Matter of fact, I have a meeting today with a country that’s coming up that wants to participate in this endeavor, I know somebody that says if
you wanna go fast, go alone. If you wanna go far, go together. – So this is a lot different
than the Space Race? – Well, 50 years ago, we were
in a race with the Russians, and now they’re one of our partners on the International Space Station, and as we move forward, we’re
in discussions with them about how they want to participate
in how we move forward. So yeah, so it’s definitely
a different flavor. – The real question is
beyond the dollars and cents, is it worth it? There was a time when
the American experiment depended on lots of
fresh blood and muscle. The argument today is
that our collective future may depend on a new type of expansion between overpopulation, climate change, and maybe simply running
out of space on Earth. So if we don’t figure it out,
this old dog and pony show known as humanity, it’s all for nothing. Though it may not be part
of NASA’s current mission, is it important for humans to be able to live on other planets?
– I personally think so. I read a lot of science fiction,
mainly because I like it, but I see these civilizations that are multi-planet civilizations and I think, if we’re
gonna always be on Earth, I think Earth has got its set
of resources and that’s it. Other planets have other resources. To me, today, we’re taking the baby steps, the initial steps, to
expand our human presence beyond the Earth permanently,
and where’s that leave us? Do we go to the asteroids next? Do we go to planets surrounding Jupiter? Those are the kinds of
things that I think we need to take the steps for today
to make happen in the future. – So here we are. Potentially, there’s a
future where we’ll need to pay people to rocket
off to their deaths, or maybe, just maybe, to rocket off to something
closer to a Utopian, science fiction wonderland
where the future really is limitless. And that’s why we wanna hear from you. If America was ours to make today, would we consider paying the
families of Mars colonists, and how much should we pay them? Or is this all nonsense? Let us know.
(trippy music) PBS is bringing you the
universe with Summer of Space, which includes six incredible
new science and history shows streaming on PBS.org
and the PBS Video app. Along with lots of spacey episodes from PBS Digital Studios creators. Follow me over to Reactions to check out their Summer of Space episode on what the moon smells like. Woo-hoo! (Toussaint mumbles) Cheese and rice. (Toussaint clears throat)
(Toussaint sighs) Woo, howdy, partner! (bright music)

White House Says It’s Time For People To Pay For Impeaching Trump


Well now that Donald Trump has officially
been acquitted by the Senate and he has already started his little victory lap with his speech
yesterday, the White House is preparing to start going after some of Donald Trump’s enemies
who are responsible for him being impeached, or at least that’s what Stephanie Grisham,
Donald Trump’s press secretary, thinks should happen. In a recent interview with Fox news, and this
was actually prior to Donald Trump’s speech yesterday, Grisham said the following, she
said, I think he’s going to talk about just how horribly he was treated and, you know,
that maybe people should pay for that. People should pay for that, Stephanie Grisham
says, and I don’t think she’s meaning they need to cough up a couple of bucks. I think Stephanie Grisham is letting us know
without a doubt that this White House is about to go scorched earth on anyone they perceive
as an enemy. Obviously, we’ve discussed earlier in this
week as Gabriel Sherman pointed out over at Vanity Fair, Donald Trump is allegedly, according
to Republican lawmakers, compiling an enemies list that includes people like Adam Schiff
and Jerry Nadler. And at this point I’m willing to bet that
enemies list also includes Mitt Romney. Donald Trump, really this past week since
the acquittal has really gone after Mitt Romney more so than anybody else. Shortly after the vote, he actually tweeted
out a video of Mitt Romney being defeated on election night and then towards the end
of the video, it switched to Donald Trump’s results coming in on election night, 2016
and winning. Trump has always, always taken digs at Romney
over win, losing, excuse me, in 2012 even though Barack Obama was the heavy favorite
to win that, and he pulled it off pretty much exactly as expected. But nonetheless, Grisham’s trying to give
us a warning here. If you went against Donald Trump, if you said
something he didn’t like or if you were one of the Democrats responsible for this, get
ready for hell. And that is what Democrats do need to get
ready for and people like Mitt Romney too. It’s coming. You’re not going to stop this man. He feels a renewed sense of invincibility
at the moment and he is going to use that to his advantage. He is going to come after each and every one
of you with everything he has. And when he has nothing, he’s just going to
make things up. We’ve seen him do it in the past and that’s
what’s going to happen to Democrats now. So they need to be prepared for this. They need to be able to counter this, and
it better be something more than, well, the trial was rigged. We all know the trial was rigged. So you better stock up with some better ammo
than that because this man is about to go pure crazy in a way we have never seen throughout
his administration.

Republicans Are Privately Admitting Trump Is Unfit For Office


Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown pinned in
op-ed for the New York Times that ran yesterday where Brown stated that, Republican senators,
you know, his colleagues in the Senate, they talk privately a lot about the fact that Donald
Trump is unfit for office. In fact, this is exactly what Brown said. He said, in private, many of my colleagues
agree that the president is reckless and unfit. They admit his lies and they acknowledge what
he did was wrong. They know this president has done things Richard
Nixon never did, and they know that more damning evidence is likely to come out. Fantastic. So. Don’t get me wrong, I love Sherrod Brown. I think he is a wonderful Democratic Senator
and to be honest, I was a little disappointed he didn’t throw his hat into the presidential
ring. But this op-ed is a big so what? Right? We have seen reports from day one of this
administration that, oh, behind the scenes, Republicans say they don’t like Trump. They vote with him all the time. They just voted to acquit him even though
they admitted he committed crimes publicly, not even just in private, some publicly. So what good do these op-eds do? We know Republicans know that this guy is
unfit, but at the same time he is delivering every part of the Republican agenda that they
have ever wanted. So of course they’re not going to do anything
about it. They’re going to sit there, hand him a new
stack of right-wing judges to nominate. He’ll nominate them, they’ll approve him,
they’ll then hand him the next tax cut that they want, he’ll approve it. Then they’ll hand them the entitlement cuts
they want to make. He’ll approve it and life goes on. They’ll tell him what regulations to cut and
he’ll do it. He is their puppet, not the other way around. And that’s why they tend to defend him so
much because he is a know nothing president. He didn’t come from politics. He doesn’t know how things work. And, you know, we have seen a lot from people
over the years saying that Trump is the one pulling the strings on these Republican senators. But honestly folks, it’s backwards. They’re the ones pulling one over on him. They’re the ones telling him what to do because
he has done nothing different than what any other Republican president would have done
with the possible exception of the trade war. Other than that, why would Republicans buck
the system? We don’t need to hear what they say behind
closed doors, I’m sure behind closed doors, some Democrats were talking bad about Obama
and Republicans were talking about about Bush and Democrats were talking bad about Clinton
and so on and so forth throughout all of history. We don’t need another op-ed telling us and
then Sharrod Brown goes on and makes another horrible point where he says, history does
not look kindly on politicians who cannot fathom a fate worse than losing an upcoming
election. That’s simply not true. That’s simply not true. Members of the George W. Bush administration,
you know, the ones who illegally spied on American citizens. The ones who launched a war based on lies,
killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, thousands of us troops, all based on lies. The ones who illegally tortured detainees
who had not been accused of any crimes. Yeah, remember those folks? Remember how we thought back then, oh, history
is going to torch these folks? They’re doing fine. Every one of them is doing fine. The lawyers who wrote those legal memos justifying
torture, they got cushy huge contracts at multibillion dollar defense law firms. They’re doing fine. Condoleezza Rice is heavily involved in college
football now. So yeah, her career’s just fine. George W. Bush’s image has been rehabilitated
because he gave a Michelle Obama some candy and watched a football game with Ellen. History forgets a lot faster than we think
it does, and it’s a hell of a lot kinder to criminals, including war criminals, than we’d
like it to be. So let’s stop making the argument that history
is not going to be kind to these people because no, if there’s one thing history is capable
of, it’s white washing somebody’s activities to make them look better than they actually
are.

Tech Giants Increasing Lobby Efforts To Block Regulations & Women Equal Pay Lawsuit Thrown Out


Tech giants like Facebook and Google have
increased their lobbying efforts as they try to avoid any new regulations for their corrupt
industries. And so what’s happening, I mean, you know,
look, would you ever think of Google or Facebook as the term corrupt? You’re seeing it all the time. I mean, that’s just not us saying that, you’re
seeing it in the general media. But 15 years ago you never would have said,
you would have never associated the word corrupt with those two industries, but right now they
feel like they have such a problem that you’ve got, you’ve got them spending $20 million,
$15 million, $8 million, $18 million a year just to lobby to overcome the attack that
they’re under. What’s your take on it? I mean, just to point out, imagine somebody
waking up from a 10 year coma today and turning this on, saying what? What’s wrong with Facebook? But, but it is that and they understand it
as does Google as does Microsoft and Apple. That’s why all of their totals in lobbying
for the last year have gone up. They understand that law makers from both
sides of the aisle, this is a good bipartisan issue that they’re trying to work on here. Yeah, it is. They know that, listen, they’re gonna hit
us with these antitrust laws because, because you know, I’m Facebook. I’m a social media site. I’m a news organization now. I’m an advertising agency. I am everything and that can’t exist under
antitrust laws. And Amazon is a great example of that. Amazon is too, perfect. Where, where you’ve got, you’ve got these,
you’ve got these folks that are putting people out of business all over America right now
for one thing or another. They’re, one thing we’re really seeing is
the, the news industry is going bust. I mean, you’ve got Gannett laying off people
by the hundreds. You’ve got a Buzzfeed great example. You’ve got Yahoo trying to figure out how
are they going to hold on to the industry that they have. They really can’t because you’ve got, you’ve
got Google and Facebook gobbling up and Amazon gobbling up so much of the market out there. So I, you know, as I look at this, there’s
two things they want to accomplish. When I talk about Google, I talk about Facebook
or, or Microsoft. Microsoft, don’t forget Microsoft is, you
know, owns part of MSNBC. So what, what we’re, what we’re looking at
is we’re looking at not just them fighting antitrust, they’re fighting any effort to,
to move towards regulatory at all. They will, they don’t want regulatory to come
in and have anything to do with this. And I thought this is interesting. Maybe you can answer this real quickly. They say we have to spend money lobbying,
lobbying, and the question then becomes what is it that they’re lobbying? What is it that they’re trying to accomplish? And the answer is obvious. We want to be bigger, we want to make more
profits. And the old days of us being something that’s
so integral to social media is quickly disappearing. The Supreme Court has thrown out an appeals
court ruling in favor of a woman’s equal pay claim against a California Superintendent
because the liberal judge who authored the decision died before it was actually issued. RT correspondent Brigida Santos joins me now
with the story. Brigida, tell us more about this unanimous
ninth circuit ruling where they say, well, gee, he died before it came into effect. Therefore we’re, we’re going to reverse it. I, it’s interesting precedent. Go ahead. Very, very interesting Mike. Now on Monday, the Supreme Court tossed out
a 2018 ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that employers cannot use
a worker’s prior salary to justify paying women less than men. That lawsuit was filed by a female teacher
from Fresno against her superintendent after she found out that she was being paid less
than her male counterparts. Now the reason this decision was tossed out
this week is because judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote the opinion died 11 days before
the ruling was actually issued. Reinhardt’s vote contributed to the six five
majority to uphold the 1963 equal pay act, which abolished wage discrimination based
on sex. In his opinion, Reinhardt disagreed with the
superintendent’s claims that prior wages aren’t solely based on sex, but in combination with
other factors stating, “allowing employers to capitalize on the persistence of the wage
gap and perpetuate that gap would be contrary to the text and history of the equal pay act. And it would weaken the very purpose for which
the act stands.” Okay, here’s a judge that heard the facts,
listened to all the substantive evidence. Obviously he’s been on the bench awhile. This, you know, he wasn’t just appointed and
died. He’s been there awhile, an experienced judge. A judge and, and the, the, the thing that
bothers me is, is the precedent that’s created in this, first of all, it’s an important decision. This is not a minor decision by some, by some,
judge out in the wilderness. This is an important decision. Is the standard procedure for the court to
throw out a pending ruling when a judge dies? Is that, is that the norm in California? Well, it is now. In fact, prior to this decision, the court
hadn’t yet determined whether a judges vote can count if he or she decides, dies before
a ruling that they participated in is announced. Now, as you said, even though the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals said that the 2018 opinion was final and that voting was finished before
Reinhardt’s death, the court is tossing the decision out because it wasn’t endorsed by
a majority of living judges at the time of issuance. Now, since judges can change their opinions
up until the very last minute, the court has determined that opinions issued after death
should not count. So this issue of how to proceed in that manner
has now been settled and as you said, this is very important precedent. It’s a question that’s been on these judges’
minds since 2016 when Justice Antonin Scalia died at that time. The Supreme Court also decided not to issue
rulings in several pending cases that he had been involved in. For just now the economy of justice, now it’s,
we’ve got to hear it again. There has to, this whole process has to take
over again. A new judge has to, new judge has to hear
it. We have to spend the money going through the
same process because of this hyper technical notion that the ninth circuit has in their
head. Where does the equal, more importantly, more
important, where does the equal pay claim go from here? I mean we started, we started back with square
one again on a case that again is extremely important because it has to do with the way
Americans are paid. We don’t treat people different according
to gender. So, so what, what’s your take on where the
where this claim goes now? Well, it does go back to the ninth circuit
to be decided without Reinhardt and as you’ve said, it’s up in the air right now. We have a majority conservative supreme court. Now again, this is in the court of appeals,
so they’re going to have the final word on this, so we’ll have to wait and see what happens. But it is going to be a big deal. The interesting thing to me about this is
you, this is the ninth circuit. This is regarded across the country, as certainly
one of the more liberal circuits in, in America. And I’m interested in seeing this kind of
ruling coming out of them. I guess maybe they’re of the opinion that,
gee, when it’s tried again. When we, when we analyze it again, when the
facts are before substantively again we’re going to, going to come up, we’re going to
come up with the same decision. But it’s interesting. It’ll be interesting to find out. Brigida, thank you. Yeah, it’s interesting because again, it’s
a five to four, so right now without him, it’s four to four, so it really could go either
way. Thanks. Thanks for this report. We’ll keep up with it as it develops.