Life in the minority isn’t easy. When you’re in the minority and a recipient of threats and abuse because of your minority status, life gets even harder. But when you bring these issues and concerns for your own safety to the attention of your employer, and they do nothing, thats called the tipping point.
And so it was for Louay Kezy, a Michigan man who has filed a $12 million lawsuit against Wal-Mart after being on the receiving end of anti-Muslim and anti-Arab abuse at work. Kezy’s attorney, Nabih Ayad, relayed Kezy’s story to the Detroit News:
“They demeaned him, harassed him, called him names. They accused him of being a terrorist,” Ayad said. “Supervisors ordered him to do jobs that were unrelated to his duties. They allowed a joke, a game to continue where co-workers would toss a ball near him and pretend it was a grenade, a bomb. Wal-Mart allowed this hostile environment to continue and they fired him when he complained.”
Dearborn, Michigan, has a very large Arab and Muslim population, and with that in mind Wal-Mart opened an experimental store there in March which offers a special line of products geared toward the Arab American and American Muslim communities in the Metro Detroit area. Unfortunately, the same respect shown to customers may be missing with regards to employees.
“It is absurd that his supervisors think they can take this action against an Arab American without consequences right in the middle of the largest Arab community outside of the Middle East,” Ayad said. “That Wal-Mart can take their money as consumers but allow an Arab employee to be abused is absurd.”
This is a refrain we’ve heard all too often. Issues of discrimination within Wal-Mart seem to follow the company like paparazzi on Britney Spears.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Wal-Mart has once again received the Human Rights Campaign’s (HRC) lowest possible rating in its recently released ”Buying for Equality 2009” guide. HRC’s guide rates retailers and other corporations on their respective company policies that support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals including anti-discrimination protections, domestic partner benefits, diversity training, and transgender wellness benefits. Companies are scored from 0 to 100, with passing retailers receiving HRC’s “green” rating.
This year, Wal-Mart remains in HRC’s do-not-buy zone with a “red” rating. Wal-Mart’s overall score, 40 out of 100, remains stagnant from the HRC’s 2008 guide.
Other retailers such as Best Buy, Sears (Kmart), Target, and Walgreens all received HRC’s highest possible rating with scores of 100 out of 100. Costco, CVS, and Home Depot also received HRC’s green rating with scores of 93, 90, and 85, respectively.
Since 2007, Wal-Mart’s policies that support LGBT employees have been stalled after Wal-Mart bowed to the pressure of conservative critics and withdrew its support from the National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. In doing so, Wal-Mart cited its policy to “avoid highly controversial issues”.
Yet, the real controversy continues to lie within Wal-Mart’s non-inclusive policies which perpetuate the treatment of LGBT individuals as second class citizens with second class rights. Until Wal-Mart makes the necessary changes to guarantee all its employees equal and fair rights, as HRC suggests, consumers should make the choice to shop elsewhere.
To download the complete Buying for Equality 2009 guide, visit the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted by Michael Mignano | Permalink
A Missouri City (Texas) woman convicted of a sex crime is out to prove that she has rights after being fired from her job at Wal-Mart.
Rebecca Vlasek, she of the inspiring mug shot, has filed suit claiming discrimination against our little Wal-Mart. Why you ask? Well, I’ll tell you.
Picture it: Brenham, Texas...1999. A sultry high school teacher pleads guilty to felony sexual assault of a minor. The charge: having a relationship with a 14-year-old female student. The result: 10 years on probation and the thrill of getting to register as an official pervert within the state of Texas. You can check out her rap sheet here and here.
So why is Vlasek complaining now? Well Wal-Mart, it turns out, discovered some time ago that it has quite a few sexual offenders working within its friendly confines. And, as it also turns out, every so often one of these offenders decides to, how shall we say, engage in some recidivism? Like this, and this...AND this........AANNNND this.
The result is that Wal-Mart, since adopting a new criminal background check policy, has fired approximately 800 employees who are registered sex offenders. Vlasek (pictured more recently), however, isn’t complaining about those that were fired...no, she’s complaining about the 25 or more (male, she claims) employee offenders Wal-Mart ISN’T firing. That’s right - according to her complaint, Vlasek is alleging that she has received disparate treatment because of her gender. We’ll see whether the court buys the arguments that Vlasek was fired not just because she “had relations” with a 14-year-old girl but because she is a woman...AND that Wal-Mart retained those other 25 or so offenders specifically because they’re men, and not for some other reason.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with a Bloomberg report of Wal-Mart being placed on a list of most controversial companies. Also named - the company responsible for producing melamine-tainted milk in China. The list includes companies criticized for producing negative impacts on communities, health, and the environment, and was based on a study by RepRisk, a consulting firm that analyzes companies’ exposure to controversial issues and news.
You’ll also find stories from BusinessWeek and the Financial Times on how corporate giants like Wal-Mart are gearing up to battle potential pro-labor legislation in 2009. With President-Elect Barack Obama and the Democrats taking over next year, retailers are bracing to fight the Employee Free Choice Act – or EFCA – which could make it easier to organize unions in the workplace.
In addition to EFCA, you’ll find stories on Wal-Mart and the economy. And from the legal front, read about a $19 million discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart and Pepsi in West Virginia. Plus, in the world of product safety, read more about questions raised by the controversial chemical BPA, as well how Wal-Mart has been selling lead-tainted face paint for kids…a no-no anytime, and especially around Halloween.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe. Chicago city aldermen have a wish list for an Obama presidency; the fight continues over whether Wal-Mart can build near a Civil War battlefield in Virginia; and towns in California and Nevada deny Wal-Mart the ability to sell alcohol on its store shelves.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [November 12, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Starting now, Wal-Mart Watch will be periodically updating you on some of the new comments submitted to our Employee Speak-Out site. These comments are sent in from visitors to our site who are former or current employees of Wal-Mart and its sister companies, who have been victims of the systematic abuse and discrimination that Wal-Mart is known for inflicting upon its employees. Remember that if you have a story to tell about working at Wal-Mart, we encourage you to tell us about it - we’ll put it up on the web and let your voice be heard.
As we look forward to the next 4 years, we hope that this website will be among the many tools that Wal-Mart workers use to help change Wal-Mart and their lives for the better.
Workplace stress leads to tragedy for pregnant worker:
“I was a manager in the housewares department. I just got my separation notice from them for not returning to work from my leave of absence. There is a reason I didn’t return; I feel they are responsible for the death of my baby.”
Anonymous on Age-Based Termination:
“Wal Mart is systematically targeting anyone over 40 years of age for firings through systematically assigning the heaviest, most back breaking jobs to that class of people in the facility. Managers are encouraged to pressure senior employees into quitting and firing to ensure that young strong backs are maintained in the facility.”
I attended a meeting that was conducted by a market manager. We were not told to not vote for Obama
Posted by Luke West | Permalink
On the heels of the recent passage of the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act, Wal-Mart Watch today is releasing a report which exposes a conscious strategy by Wal-Mart to flout the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and discriminate against the company’s employees with disabilities.
To accompany the report, Wal-Mart Watch is also releasing a new video in which a mother tells how her daughter, who has a cognitive disability, was essentially terminated when she was required to take a leave of absence while Wal-Mart considered her request for a schedule accommodation.
The report, entitled “Reasonable Accommodation – Denied,” reveals Wal-Mart’s deliberate use of a “leave of absence” tactic to remove employees with disabilities from employment with the company. The report is the culmination of an exhaustive study by Wal-Mart Watch of more than 700 federal discrimination lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. since January 1, 2004 to present – including more than 100 filed by persons with disabilities.
“Reasonable Accommodation – Denied” profiles many currently pending lawsuits and reveals two very disturbing trends. First, Wal-Mart intentionally uses a tactic the report describes as the “leave of absence trick” - requiring employees with disabilities to take an unpaid leave of absence as a method for ultimately removing them from employment with the company. Second, Wal-Mart repeatedly refuses to comply with federal law and provide ADA-mandated accommodations for employees and applicants with disabilities.
Download the full report PDF here, and make sure read similar employee stories about Wal-Mart’s discrimination against employees with disabilities at www.walmartspeakout.com.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Oct27
Meet Jane Doe
Wal-Mart Watch is releasing a new video today to accompany our new report, “Reasonable Accommodation – Denied,” which exposes Wal-Mart’s deliberate pattern of discrimination against employees with disabilities.
After working at Wal-Mart for nine years with a reasonable accommodation for her disability, Wal-Mart suddenly denied Jane’s accommodation. They required her to take a leave of absence and have yet to reinstate her. She has been essentially fired. This is her story.
Posted by Eric Bull | Permalink
Wal-Mart’s senior counsel, Tom Mars, gave a speech this week on diversity in the company’s legal department. Because Wal-Mart has never had any diversity-related legal issues.
Mars used a “luncheon honoring the winners of the second annual survey of best law firms for women” as a time to showcase Wal-Mart’s gender diversity and commitment to flexible schedules. (The survey also examined the best companies for working mothers, and Wal-Mart didn’t make the list.) The fact that Mars was invited at all seems like an unintentional joke: not only is Wal-Mart currently involved in the largest class action gender discrimination lawsuit in history, but the company’s scheduling policies have also been condemned as bad for working mothers and hard on families.
Mars’ speech reveals a dichotomy within Wal-Mart: store employees and corporate employees are separated by a wide gulf, and different rules, benefits and salaries are applied to each. Women may very well make up a significant part of Wal-Mart’s corporate legal department, as Mars insists, but women working in Wal-Mart’s stores still face discriminatory promotion practices and lower wages than their male counterparts. That’s not something ANY working mother should support.
Law Firms Get Rated on Female Friendliness [New York Times Shifting Careers Blog]
Two weeks ago, on the same day that Lehman filed for bankruptcy protection more than 300 corporate lawyers showed up at the Mandarin Hotel in New York City for a luncheon honoring the winners of the second annual survey of best law firms for women sponsored by Working Mother Magazine and Flex-Time Lawyers. The high attendance in the face of such economic turmoil suggested that work/life issues and the promotion of female lawyers has genuinely become a pressing business issue for the legal industry.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Check out this week’s issue of the Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials – a compilation of Wal-Mart news from across the country and beyond.
This week’s issue begins with reports of price gouging on the part of Wal-Mart. What’s truly abhorrent about these reports, however, is that they are being made by the very people affected most by the recent cavalcade of hurricanes to batter the Gulf coast. The Arkansas News Bureau and The Consumerist have more on these stories.
You’ll also find major news on the legal front. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed its second lawsuit against Wal-Mart in less than three weeks. The first involves the Americans with Disabilities Act in Illinois; the second involves age discrimination against a 67-year-old optician in Missouri. In addition to the EEOC lawsuits, Wal-Mart will now have to face another class action wage/hour lawsuit. Salvas v. Wal-Mart was originally certified as a class action back in 2004. Since then the case has gone back and forth through the Massachusetts court system, eventually being decertified and winding up in front of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on appeal. Well, the SJC released its opinion this week, ruling that the decertification was improper and that the lawsuit should be reinstated as a class action. A trial is possible, which could cost Wal-Mart hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid wages and damages. The Boston Globe and Boston Herald have the story.
Also check out the Product and Food Safety Report, where you’ll find stories on BPA (and a class action lawsuit regarding the chemical that includes Wal-Mart), dangerous soccer goals and baby cribs sold at Wal-Mart, and a pet food recall involving Purina products sold at the retailer.
And finally, check out our “Stateside” and “Wal-Mart International” sections to find out what’s going on with Wal-Mart around the country and across the globe.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [September 24, 2008]
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
For the second time in as many weeks, Wal-Mart has been accused of violating federal law by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
In the first lawsuit filed earlier this month in Illinois, the EEOC accused Wal-Mart of violating employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This time around, the suit involves not disability but age discrimination. The ADEA - or Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 - prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age or older in the United States. After an investigation, the EEOC determined Yvonne Loskot was fired from the retailer’s De Soto, Missouri, store because she was too old and made too much money.
According to the EEOC complaint filed in federal court in Missouri’s eastern district, Loskot was 67 when she was fired. According to a story from the St. Louis Business Journal, Wal-Mart has claimed Loskot was let go for violating an unspecified company policy.
Loskot, who worked for Wal-Mart for a decade, earned $18 an hour as a certified optician, making her the highest-paid employee in the De Soto store’s optical department.
Agency accuses Wal-Mart of age discrimination [CNN Money]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed suit in U.S. District Court in Illinois for violating employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit was brought yesterday on behalf of Barbara Hacker, a Wal-Mart greeter who suffers from epilepsy. Click here for a copy of the complaint.
The EEOC is the federal enforcing agency for the employment provisions of the ADA, and this is NOT the Commission’s first run-in with Wal-Mart. In fact, Wal-Mart’s history with the EEOC is littered with lawsuits, settlements, and broken promises to eliminate barriers for applicants and employees with disabilities. A report by Human Rights Watch found that between 1992 (when the ADA went in to effect) and 2002, sixteen suits had been filed by the Commission against Wal-Mart for violating Title I of the ADA, the most filed against any single corporation. Several more cases have been filed since then, two of which were settled earlier this year. (For more info on these, click here and here.)
As for Barbara Hacker, she informed her supervisors when she was hired about her epilepsy. She asked for nothing more than the reasonable accommodation of being allowed to sit for a couple minutes in a quiet place while she recovered from seizures. For a time she was accommodated, but ultimately she was fired after having a seizure in a back room off the sales floor at the Rockford Wal-Mart. According to EEOC attorney Aaron Decamp:
[T]he lawsuit was filed after Hacker filed a complaint with the EEOC in late 2006, after she was fired. EEOC investigators determined the claim had merit, and attorneys tried to reach a settlement with Wal-Mart before the suit was filed.
It should be noted that being the top lawsuit target of the ADA enforcement agency is probably not a good thing. Resources do not allow the EEOC to prosecute every case, which is why the Commission uses “strategic and vigorous” litigation as an enforcement tool.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission files suit against Wal-Mart [Rockford Register Star]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
At Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
Another Wal-Mart employee recently filed a racial discrimination and retaliation complaint against Wal-Mart in the Northern District of Georgia…
Raquel Sagastume lives in Riverdale, Georgia. Originally, Ms. Sagastume hails from Honduras. She was hired at Wal-Mart as a Sales Associate in March of 2001. After her successful job performance, Ms. Sagastume was promoted to Assistant Store Manager and made approximately $46,000.00 a year.
In 2006, Ms. Sagastume was transferred to a store located in Lovejoy, Georgia. Upon arriving at the new location and without her approval, Ms. Sagastume’s salary was immediately reduced to $38,000.00 a year. No indication was ever given to Ms. Sagastume that her performance on the job was anything less than stellar.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Christina Clark | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of it workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
Just as important as those large class actions, however, are the countless suits filed by individual plaintiffs – the tiny David trying to win justice over Wal-Mart’s Goliath. We at Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
In February of 2007, Daniel Bajor was employed at a Wal-Mart in Warren, MI – about an hour away from Lake Erie. According to Bajor, who is white, he was hired as a member of the custodial staff, working the midnight shift on a team that was 55% Black. During his eight month tenure, Bajor witnessed fellow employees steal from the store on several occasions and even work while intoxicated, only to receive verbal reprimand for their actions. These slaps on the wrist were a far cry from the company’s policy of mandatory termination in both instances.
But on October 5, 2007 when Bajor took three unauthorized breaks (to cope with a lingering illness) that totaled one hour off the clock, he was unable to benefit from such lax enforcement of company policy. Instead, he found himself severely sanctioned – first suspended and later fired, both of which occurred over the course of four days. Having seen several Black co-workers get away with far more egregious violations of company policy in a store where Blacks comprised nearly two-thirds of the management team, Bajor decided to file a Title VII complaint for a wrongful discharge.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
At Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
On August 5, 2008, a Kansas resident, Heather Wiseman, filed a complaint against Wal-Mart claiming discrimination based on her pregnancy and resulting medical condition, as well as a claim for violating the Family Medical Leave Act when they terminated her employment.
Heather was hired to work at Wal-Mart on October 31, 2006. In May of 2007, Heather found out she was pregnant and informed Wal-Mart of her condition. Throughout her pregnancy Heather began getting urinary tract and bladder infections. As a result, Heather was instructed by her doctor to drink lots of water and carry a water bottle with her when she was at work.
It had been Wal-Mart’s policy to allow employees to carry water with them at all times. Soon after Heather began carrying her water, Wal-Mart began prohibiting this behavior… for everyone except cashiers. Heather’s infections continued during this time as she was unable to consume enough water merely through the use of Wal-Mart’s water fountains. Working as a sales floor associate Heather asked the assistant manager for an exception due to her pregnancy-related condition. As requested, Heather submitted a doctor’s note listing her condition and prescribing the use of a water bottle while on duty.
Wal-Mart then denied her request stating that it was “insufficient.”
Heather provided a second note, as well as, sat down in a meeting with her department and store manager. At the meeting the store manager contacted Heather’s doctor and discussed her need for the water bottle. Problem solved?… No.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Christina Clark | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
At Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
Recently, the Philadelphia Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) released a story about a Pennsylvanian woman, Tanveer Walli, who filed a civil rights complaint in Federal Court on July 10, 2008 naming Wal-Mart as a defendant. Ms. Walli alleges discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of her religion, as well as intimidation and coercion under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Ms. Walli says she was refused service at the Wal-Mart store McDonald’s location because of her headscarf (or hijab).
According to the suit, the plaintiff entered an Allentown McDonald’s in August of last year and was verbally accosted and refused service by the restaurant manager. The plaintiff says her pleas for equal treatment were treated with laughter as other patrons were served. She then allegedly sought the assistance of a Wal-Mart manager, who instead of helping, asked her to leave the store.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Christina Clark | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
Just as important as those large class actions, however, are the countless suits filed by individual plaintiffs – the tiny David trying to win justice over Wal-Mart’s Goliath. We at Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
Mrs. Magen Davidson-Nadwodny of Baltimore, Maryland never expected she would be yet another victim of sexual harassment at her local Wal-Mart. She was hired on in the Women’s Jewelry Department, in October of 2005. Mrs. Davidson, who was working to support her family and disabled parents, alleges that she was subjected to repeated and continued sexual harassment by her female co-worker. Additionally, she claims that Wal-Mart not only knew about the behavior and did not stop it, but Wal-mart had previously transferred another employee to the shoe department for the same problem.
Mrs. Davidson filed a 49 page complaint on September 26, 2007 in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore County. She is suing Wal-Mart for Battery, Sexual Harassment / Hostile Work Environment, Harassment, Breach of Implied Employment Contract, Intentional Misrepresentation, Intentional/Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Defamation, Invasion of Privacy – Placing a Person in a False Light, Negligent Hiring or Retention, Respondeat Superior, and Retaliation.
(What the heck does Respondeat Superior mean? …basically an employer is responsible for the actions of its employee under the law).
As early as November of the same year Mrs. Davidson was hired, she reports experiencing sexual advances and harassment from her co-worker, an Assistant Department Manager for Jewelry.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Christina Clark | Permalink
Wal-Mart has, unsurprisingly, been the target of more lawsuits than one can count over the years. The company’s treatment of its workers and “save money at all costs” mentality has resulted in a flood of legal challenges ranging from single plaintiff suits to multi-million dollar class actions. Dukes v. Wal-Mart is of course one large example (the largest class action in American history, actually), as are the myriad wage/hour/overtime class actions the company faces.
Just as important as those large class actions, however, are the countless suits filed by individual plaintiffs – the tiny David trying to win justice over Wal-Mart’s Goliath. We at Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on one of these stories each week, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
James E. Faust v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
Wal-Mart Store Manager Grace Gibson hired James Faust as a store greeter at a Wal-Mart in Calera, AL in April of 2001. Gibson was well aware of Faust’s physical disabilities, permitting him to rely on his own motorized scooter in the performance of his job duties for the first three years of his employment. In February of 2005, Gibson disallowed Faust from leaving the scooter at the store overnight to recharge and informed him that he could use the store’s scooter (whenever it was not in use by customers). Once Gibson prevented Faust from keeping his scooter at the workplace, Faust promptly filed a claim with the EEOC.
After the EEOC charge was filed, Faust was then prohibited from using Wal-Mart’s scooter, and was instructed to use the store’s (broken) wheelchairs. Faust continued to work at the store for approximately three more months, walking and sitting as much as possible. Before long, the lack of accommodation and disregard for his disability proved overwhelming, causing Faust to resign and file a complaint in federal court.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Joel Nezianya | Permalink
This article originally appeared on the Huffington Post.
Civil Rights Group Gives Wal-Mart A C+
More than 1,300 delegates to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Convention were warmed up by Barak Obama and John McCain speeches---but the real heat in Cincinnati came during a debate over Wal-Mart.
During 5 days of conventioneering, the delegates took up 45 resolutions---one of the most contentious being the business practices of the World’s Largest Retailer.
On the Convention floor, NAACP Resolution #14 read:
“Oppose Wal-mart and Other Retailers Unfair Labor Practices Resolved: That the NAACP will challenge Wal-Mart and other retailers to overcome any of their practices that are inconsistent with the highest standards of Labor and Civil Rights, to ensure equal opportunity and equal pay for Women, people of color and other minorities, and work with local communities to effectively address Wal-Mart’s and other retailers negative impact on issues like the environment and local businesses, and establish a ‘Buy American’ program that annually increases the percentage of ‘Made in America’ goods purchased by Wal-Mart and Other retailers to help protect American Jobs.”
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman | Permalink
The International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in collaboration with 40 civil organizations around the world, released a report today on business and human rights. The report, which was presented directly to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, “aims to bring light to situations in which companies have harmed the enjoyment of human rights.”
The report focuses on 159 case studies where businesses have directly interfered with human rights, and Wal-Mart is featured prominently. The company’s anti-union actions - including firing pro-union employees and shutting down stores on the verge of unionizing - has already been documented by human rights organizations, and makes an appearance in this report as well. Wal-Mart’s history of gender discrimination is also mentioned as a breach of human rights.
Download a copy of the report, or read the executive summary below. From ESCR’s website:
This Collective Report on Business and Human Rights aims to bring light to situations in which companies have harmed the enjoyment of human rights. Prepared with the collaboration of 40 civil society organizations around the world, this report surveys cases of alleged human rights abuses by, or involving, companies from a wide range of documented situations in order to illuminate the scope of these incidents and identify modalities by which companies negatively impact the enjoyment of human rights. Further, the report analyzes existing gaps in the protection of human rights in the context of business, and offers recommendations to the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council and its Member States in its 8th Session, as well as to other UN human rights bodies on how to strengthen business accountability to human rights.
At the same time, this report is envisioned as a space to offer testimony of the actual impacts that business conduct has on the human rights of individuals, communities and indigenous peoples. Discussions on these issues at the UN level have tended to focus on abstract concepts rather than the actual experiences of those affected by company human rights abuses. We deem it critical to include the views and perspectives of those suffering abuse for a proper assessment and resolution of the problem.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Apr08
Ridiculous Rulings
No one denies that Wal-Mart legally had a right to the money in Debbie Shank’s trust fund. It was the morality of the issue that repulsed a nation (and eventually caused Wal-Mart to back down). However, this is neither the first nor last time Wal-Mart will skate around justice on legal technicalities.
Welcome to our newest series, Ridiculous Rulings, where we will periodically shine the light on so-called Wal-Mart ‘wins’ in the justice system. Wins that have nothing to do with justice and everything to do with the law. Our first two entries after the jump.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Cass Brulott | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube