If you believe (as I definitely do) that the Supreme Court’s June ruling blocking a class action suit against Wal-Mart was a victory for women,  a gleeful Martha Burke—best known for her crusade against the Augusta National Golf Club—has news for you:

Well, like Freddy Krueger every Halloween, it's ba-a-a-ck. And it ought to scare the hell out of Walmart execs and stockholders alike. The case was re-filed in California October 27 as a class action against California Walmart and Sam's Club stores.

First off, it should be noted that Ms. Burke apparently regards scaring executives and stockholders at the nation’s largest private employer in a time of economic stagnation as a really good idea. Forget that Wal-Mart could be investing in the company (which often results in hiring, Martha) instead paying big legal bills.

 The Supreme Court’s ruling blocked a class action suit against Wal-Mart on the grounds that the plaintiffs were too small a group to represent the thousands of women who work at Wal-Mart. Three plaintiffs claimed to speak for 1.5 women who work or have worked at Wal-Mart.

The plaintiffs alleged in the previous suit that Wal-Mart–which has localized management that puts a great deal of responsibility in the hands of on-site managers–systemically discriminates against women. As IWF Senior Fellow Anna Rittgers, a lawyer, noted at the time the evidence of discrimination was weak and relied on a sociological study, statistical analysis, and anecdotes.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to let the case go forward was a good thing for business, as the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial on “the Wal-Mart ripple effect.” It gave courage to employers who might face similar suits:

The Supreme Court did America's struggling economy a service in June in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the unanimous ruling that curbed the trial bar's ability to level frivolous class-action discrimination lawsuits against employers. Now the case is rippling through the lower courts and having the same salutary effects on similar cases leveled against lenders.

This time the suit claims to represent a smaller group of women (90,000) and the plaintiffs and their lawyers are hoping this narrowing of the class will help their cause. Ms. Burke says that there are documents and anecdotes proving that Wal-Mart’s culture is biased against women.

But here’s the thing that I think Burke and others with an ideological axe to grind forget: most managers and people in business are trying to get the job done, not promote an agenda. It’s hard to believe that a good manager would discriminate against a female employee who gets the job done because of attitudes about gender.

But here we go again.