This is the VOA Special English Economics Report.
这里是美国之音慢速英语经济报道。
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.
在美国法律体系中，人们通常以个人身份进行民事诉讼。但如果许多人有共同的诉讼主张，他们可以尝试提起集体诉讼。
Michael Dorf is a law professor at Cornell University.
迈克尔·多夫（Michael Dorf）是康奈尔大学的一位法学教授。
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."
多夫：“根据美国法律，集体诉讼是一种允许一大群人作为一个集体提起民事诉讼的程序性手段。”
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.
但是提起集体诉讼必须获得法院批准，并且集体诉讼有可能被法院驳回。本周，这一幕就发生在美国的最大私营企业的150万前任与现任雇员身上。这些女雇员指控沃尔玛百货在其门店中歧视女性员工。但美国最高法院未能批准这些女雇员在联邦法院对沃尔玛发起庞大的集体诉讼。
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.
这些女雇员索赔数十亿美元。她们称，在沃尔玛，男性得到了更多职位和升职机会。她们指控沃尔玛违反联邦法律中的1964年《民权法》。
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.
这起案件始于大约十年前。加州地区法院批准这个案件可以作为集体诉讼继续进行。沃尔玛对此提出上诉，但在联邦上诉法院再次败诉。但周一，沃尔玛在美国最高法院的上诉中胜诉。
Professor Dorf -- who was not involved in the case -- says the justices disagreed about whether there was a "common question."
多夫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."
多夫：“据法院所言，共性是指原告可以证明，并进而胜诉的那些问题。”
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.
他表示，大多数法官发现，沃尔玛被指控的并非同种类型的歧视或政策，而是多种不同行为。
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."
多夫：“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。但这些女雇员指控沃尔玛政策不公平，以及纵容一些门店经理的不当行为。
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.
在裁决中，最高法院出现了5：4的分歧。然而所有9名大法官一直认为，这起集体诉讼不能继续进行。这些女雇员需要满足额外的司法要求，因为她们要求沃尔玛对她们声称的已经受到的伤害作出赔偿。所有大法官一致认为她们未能满足相关要求。
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迈克尔·哈珀（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（提起诉讼）。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。
