The fate of the largest job bias lawsuit in the nation's history — a claim that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shortchanged women in pay and promotions for many years — hinges on whether the Supreme Court will let the class-action case go to trial.

The court is likely to announce as soon as Monday whether it will hear the retail giant's appeal asserting that a single lawsuit cannot speak for more than 1.5 million employees.

Business lawyers and civil rights advocates are closely following the Wal-Mart case for its implications for class-action litigation.
"This may sound like just a technical, procedural issue, but because of the economics of it, class-action certification is often the most important issue to be decided," said Washington lawyer Roy T. Englert Jr.

If the high court permits the Wal-Mart case to proceed as a class action, it will put enormous pressure on the retailer to settle, he said. The plaintiffs have not specified the damages they would seek, but given the size of the class, it could mount into billions of dollars.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several large corporations have joined with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer, in urging the high court to hear the appeal and to restrict the use of class-action claims.

The Connecticut Supreme Court will be hearing arguments in a case where state lawmakers voted to end medical benefits for some impoverished legal immigrants. The justices are set to hear the case Tuesday.

A Hartford Superior Court judge ruled in December 2009 that a state law approved earlier that year violated the constitutional rights of legal immigrants by denying them medical benefits. The state appealed.

Lawmakers approved the legislation to save $9 million from a program serving about 4,800 immigrants who are elderly, disabled or are parents of needy children.

A 1996 federal law barred legal immigrants from receiving Medicaid until they had lived in the country five years. Connecticut had provided medical benefits to legal immigrants who'd been in country less than five years before last year's vote.

A case involving AT&T that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court this week has sweeping ramifications for potentially millions of consumers.

If the court rules for the telecom, any business that issues a contract to customers, such as for credit cards, cell phones or cable TV, could prevent them from joining class-action lawsuits.

This would take away one of the most powerful legal tools available to consumers in such cases, particularly those involving relatively small amounts of money. Class-action suits allow plaintiffs to band together in seeking compensation or redress, giving more heft to their claims.

Early returns show voters rejected Initiative 1098 being rejected with about 65 percent of the vote to 35 percent in unofficial returns.

Initiative 1098 would institute a new state tax on the top 1 percent of incomes to pay for education and health programs while trimming state property and business taxes. The campaign follows January’s overwhelming decision by Oregon voters to increase taxes for corporations and wealthier households.

"I'm particularly gratified the way Initiative 1098 is going down to defeat. I don't think we're going to see that kind of initiative back anytime soon," said former Senator Slade Gorton.

Initiative 1098 campaign was referred to as the "battle of the billionaires."

Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates and his father are among the wealthy Washingtonians who joined labor unions and other traditional Democratic allies to support the tax-the-rich ballot measure. Opposing 1098 were Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, Boeing, Russell Investments, Paccar Inc., software billionaire Charles Simonyi and members of the Nordstrom family.

And, big money was thrown into the fight. Supporters of the initiative spent more than $6.1 million, while the campaign against it spent more than $5 million of the $6.4 million raised.

Biotech firm Genzyme Corp. on Thursday said its board of directors has rejected Sanofi-Aventis SA's $69 per share offer and has recommended that Genzyme shareholders do not sell their shares to the French drugmaker.

Genzyme, based in Cambridge, Mass., said its board voted unanimously to reject the unsolicited offer.

The move comes three days after Sanofi-Aventis, the world's fourth-biggest drugmaker, initiated a hostile takeover attempt for Genzyme, escalating a three-month battle to acquire the maker of lucrative drugs for rare genetic disorders.

Sanofi, based in Paris, initially made the $69 offer privately in July, then repeated it publicly in late August, but was rebuffed by Sanofi's board twice.

As before, Genzyme said Thursday that the $69 price was too low.

Sanofi-Aventis spokesman Jack Cox said he could not immediately comment on the Genzyme announcement.

Genzyme shares jumped late in the day, rising 61 cents to $72.36 a share in regular trading, as traders apparently expected that Sanofi would be forced to raise its offer. In after-hours trading, shares jumped another 64 cents, to $73.

In a press release, Genzyme said the price "is inadequate and opportunistic, substantially undervalues the company, fails to recognize the company's plan to increase shareholder value, and is not in the best interests of Genzyme or its shareholders."