Dept. of Justice Sues Wal-Mart for Hiring Practices

GSD&M;listed Wal-Mart’s corporate reputation as the first of 10 challenges the company faces. 

But it said Wal-Mart’s brand had slipped over time from standing for values like patriotism, community and opportunity to offering only economic value as low prices. GSD&M;said if that gap is not closed, shoppers will have one more reason not to shop at Wal-Mart.

‘’While corporate respect may not be a highly rated driver of store choice, this intangible quality cannot be underestimated—especially as Millennials (people born after 1980) take hold of the marketplace,’’ the report said.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTE: A LOT of the Millenials ARE soldiers...........WalMart FIRED the PR firm (GSD&M;)who presented this advice to them a couple of years ago....

Was he “honorably” discharged from the Army?

jr: Good question. Here is the DOJ press release:----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MONDAY, MARCH 31, 2008
WWW.USDOJ.GOVCRT
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

Justice Department Files Lawsuit against Wal-mart Stores, Inc., to Defend Employment Rights of Air Force Veteran
WASHINGTON — The Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Sean Thornton, a former airman with the United States Air Force, against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., (Wal-Mart) alleging violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court in Orlando, Fla., alleges that Wal-Mart violated USERRA by failing and refusing to reinstate Thornton to his civilian employment position as a cashier at a Wal-Mart store in Orange City, Fla., after he was discharged by the Air Force. Subject to certain limitations, USERRA requires that individuals who leave their jobs to serve in the United States military be reemployed by their civilian employers in the same position that they would have held had they not left to serve in the military.

“No person should be disadvantaged in the workplace for serving our country in the military,” said Grace Chung Becker, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice remains committed to fully protecting the employment rights of individuals who serve in the armed services.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit was filed after the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor referred a complaint filed by Mr. Thornton under USERRA to the Justice Department upon completion of its investigation and unresolved settlement efforts. USERRA provides that the Department of Justice may appear on behalf of, and act as attorney for, persons whose complaints are referred to Department of Justice by the Department of Labor.

The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice was given authority over USERRA in 2004. Since that time, the Division has resolved 18 USERRA claims on behalf of servicemembers and filed the first-ever federal class action lawsuit under USERRA.

Additional information about USERRA can be found on the Department of Justice website at the following link http://www.servicemembers.gov, and on the Department of Labor Web site at the following link http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/main.htm.

ddrb,

I think this sentence, could be the problem here:  “the same position that they would have held had they not left to serve in the military.”, the words “would have held” are important!!  Example: say he was a ‘cashier’ when he left and during the year he was gone, all cashiers were upgraded to a different job, that ‘new’ job would be the job he ‘would have held’, not the cashiers job!!  If it said just, “position that they held had they not left”, then the cashiers job would be applicable!!

I’ll wait for the courts to decide before I make any judgements on either side of the issue!!  I don’t “jump the gun”, like a lot of people here do!!

I’ll wait for the courts to decide before I make any judgements on either side of the issue!!

Ditto for me, RDS—after all, who are we to argue with the DOJ??

Plus, the question was raised about honorable discharge—I, too, am curious about that…

RDS:” The Justice Department’s lawsuit was filed AFTER the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service of the Department of Labor referred a complaint filed by Mr. Thornton under USERRA to the Justice Department UPON COMPLETION of its investigation and unresolved settlement efforts”. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, USERRA requires that individuals who leave their jobs to serve in the United States military be reemployed by their civilian employers in the same position ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ My reading of this DOJ press release indicates that this complaint was referred, by the Department of Labor , TO DOJ, AFTER the DOL had completed its OWN investigation and no settlement had been resolved. Would this not indicate validity to the claim? The disclaimer “ Subject to certain limitations"may(or may not) refer to dishonorable discharges,if which true,would theoretically render the complaint moot to begin with.

ddrb,

Have you ever seen or heard of a court case?  In every one I know of, the prosecutors’s side has investigated the case, therefore, under your theory of “Would this not indicate validity to the claim?”, the prosicution should ALWAYS win, but, sometimes they DON’T, how can that be?

Why not forget TRIALS altogether, if it’s been CLAIMED to be valid, then it MUST be true, so why bother the courts at all?

does he have PTSD?
Wal-Mart could be between a rock and a hard place.
They are required to give him his job back but in his current mental state he may not interact well with the public.
There may be less liability not hiring than hiring him back either way it’s bad press.

John Howell: I read in a news release elsewhere ,that Airman Thornton was forbidden to discuss details of the case,by rules of the investigative procedure. Should this involve PTSD,and ofcourse this is entirely speculation on our parts, it is an issue that will be at the forefront of the laor force, when and if, more troops returm from Iraq. It will be the tip of an iceberg, from labor and health care standpoints,IMHO,for many businesses, and the public in general.

I looked at the actual court papers at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt//emp/documents/thorntoncomp.pdf
and I have a little bit different take based on the actual facts. In May 2006 Sean Thorton gave a two week notice informing Walmart that he was leaving to join the Air Force. He quit his job. A short time after entering the military he was discharged for medical reasons. In July 2006 he returned to Walmart and wanted his old job back with full restoration of salary and benefits. He was advised that he could reapply and would be hired as a new employee. Bottom line here is that he quit to take another job. When that didn’t work out he wanted to go back to Walmart.
That’s entirely different than the impression that is left by most reporting on the subject.

dttfofe-qwo0a3s-tw6qfb93-0 http://fun.to/wholelifeinsurance#1
term life insurance
low cost auto insurance
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/health_insurance-/#4
[http://wholelifeinsurance.webalias.com#5 whole life insurance]
“car insurance”:http://carinsurance.thrill.to#6
[LINK http://thrill.to/carinsurance#7]car insurance[/LINK]