Canada’s high court, looking festive after the holiday season, is back to its full compliment of 9 judges. The court has been a judge down for six months now, ever since the retirement of Judge Michel Bastarache. Thomas Cromwell, a Nova Scotia judge, will fill out the Court, which will return to session this month.
Among the cases on their docket? Weighing Wal-Mart’s claim that it did not close a Jonquière, Que., store in order to crush a fledgling union, an issue that came up again late last year.
Wal-Mart employees laid off in Jonquière in 2005 are to have their case against the U.S. retailer heard Jan. 19. The workers claim the giant retailer killed their jobs after they exercised their Charter right to organize themselves into a collective bargaining unit in 2004. Shortly after the workers certified a union to represent them – the first successful union drive at a Wal-Mart outlet in North America – the company closed the store, citing financial reasons, putting 190 employees on the street.
A loss for Wal-Mart certainly won’t look good for the company as it fights to slow progress of the Employee Free Choice Act south of the Canada border...meaning, here. As we noted a couple days ago, Wal-Mart already appears to be doing anything it can to resolve issues that might come back to haunt the company in the EFCA fight - such as settling its vast array of wage and hour cases.
Supreme Court set to tackle Wal-Mart case [Toronto Star]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
BUSTED!!!
Actually, as a recently joined member of Netflix, I have to admit I might not be impartial on this story. After all, they do deliver movies right to my door, allowing me to overcome my lifelong fear of video stores.
But that aside, the lawsuit appears to be some pretty serious stuff. From the Los Angeles Times:
The two companies agreed in 2005 that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer, would close its online rental business and refer customers to Netflix, which would promote Wal-Mart’s DVD movie sales, according to the lawsuit filed in federal court in San Francisco.
Sounds like a case of a couple companies engaging in some “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” behavior. The complaint suggests clandestine meetings, beginning with a dinner shared by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and then-Wal-Mart.com CEO John Fleming in January 2005, in which discussions began as to how the two could reduce competition in the DVD sales and online DVD rental markets. You can check out the whole complaint here. Its like reading The Bourne Identity...if it was written by lawyers. Bland, legalese-loving lawyers. But seriously, it is pretty interesting, and at 24 pages its not tooooo long, so check it out.
Wal-Mart, Netflix sued over online video rentals [Reuters]
Wal-Mart, Netflix conspired to create monopoly, suit alleges [Bloomberg via Los Angeles Times]
Resnick v. Wal-Mart, Netflix (Complaint)
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Come holiday season, what do you get the company that seemingly has everything? How about a settlement to its seemingly endless chain of wage and overtime suits.
We ring in the new year with this news, that Wal-Mart has chosen to settle a massive number of wage/hour and overtime class actions. The terms of the settlement could eventually cost Wal-Mart up to $640 million to settle 63 of the nearly 80 such lawsuits out there. So why, after years of fighting these suits tooth and nail (winning some while others have ended in rather large judgments against the company), has Wal-Mart finally decided to settle? At least one law professor quoted in the Wall Street Journal has an idea:
Paul M. Secunda, an associate professor at Marquette University Law School, suggested Wal-Mart wanted to settle the lawsuits not just to avoid potentially more costly defeats in the courtroom, but to resolve issues that might be used to argue for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. The legislation, expected to be considered by Congress next year, is fiercely opposed by Wal-Mart because the company worries it will make it easier for workers to unionize. Secunda said: “This is part of their overall strategy to get their labor house in order, and compared to what unionization might cost them, I think they probably realized it was a small price to pay.”
A small price to pay indeed. Wal-Mart has prevailed in getting class actions such as these decertified more times than the company has lost, though when it has and Wal-Mart has gone to trial, the judgments in just a handful of cases have totalled over $300 million. Settling 63 for just over $10 million each might not be so bad, especially if it earns the company some good street cred. Could a settlement in Dukes v. Wal-Mart be next??
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
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
When we hear about Wal-Mart being in the ‘top-five’ of something, we usually assume it’s in CEO salary, quarterly earnings, highest number of lawsuits pending against them or worst places ever to buy bassinets. Today it’s among the worst corporations on worker’s right to organize. The International Labor Rights Forum [ILRF] released a report today called: “Working for Scrooge: 5 Worst Companies for the Right to Associate,” and guess who made the list? We weren’t surprised either. Wal-Mart has a very real history of anti-union propaganda and bigotry.
The report cites several of the more highly-publicized anti union stories such as Jonquiere, Quebec where a tire and lube shop was shut down after workers successfully unionized it and Jacksonville, Texas, where the meat department of a retail outlet successfully unionized and Wal-Mart responded by shutting down the meat department in every Wal-Mart, nation-wide. Will the newly-unionized Saskatchewan outlet meet the same fate? We sure hope not…
Other finalists included: Dole, Del-Monte, Russell Athletic, and Nestle. The union-busting must be stopped. Write your local representative and tell them to support the Employee Free Choice Act today!
Posted by Luke West | Permalink
I would say that this story is surprising, but with Wal-Mart’s track record in these cases, that really, reeeeaaaalllllly would be disingenuous. As reported this morning, Wal-Mart will pay over $54 million as part of a settlement of a class-action lawsuit in Minnesota over wages and hours. The case is Braun v. Wal-Mart, a case in which Dakota County District Court Judge Robert King Jr. ruled on back in July, holding that Wal-Mart broke Minnesota labor law more than two million times over a six-year period by forcing employees to work without breaks and without full pay.
At the time, Judge King ruled that in addition to penalties, Wal-Mart owed workers at least $6 million in back wages. Under a Court order, a jury was expected to decide the amount of punitive damages and penalties in October, but settlement discussions pushed that date back.
Wal-Mart will pay up to $54.25 million to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the discount giant cut workers’ break time and allowed employees to work off the clock in Minnesota. The class includes about 100,000 current and former hourly workers who were employed at Wal-Mart Stores and Sam’s Clubs in Minnesota from Sept. 11, 1998, through Nov. 14, 2008. Wal-Mart has also agreed to maintain electronic systems, surveys and notices to stay compliant with wage and hour policies and Minnesota laws.
Needless to say, this is really just the latest in a disturbing pattern of Wal-Mart’s disregard for the law. Not only can’t Wal-Mart’s workers be very happy that retailer has decided overtime pay to be voluntary, but Wal-Mart also has a fiduciary obligation to its investors and shareholders to comply with labor regulations, and not, you know, keep doing stuff like this.
You can check out our fact sheet on Wal-Mart’s wage and hour shenanigans, if you’d like. Go ahead, click on it, and put in a little overtime on this story.
Wal-Mart To Pay $54.25 Million In Minn. Settlement [Associated Press via WCCO.com]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
The family of Jdimytai Damour has filed suit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The death, which The Oregonian (Ore.) called preventable, occurred on Black Friday. While no amount of money can ever replace a lost loved-one, the hope is that Wal-Mart will respond by taking appropriate safety measures in future situations like this one to protect the Associates they claim to care so much about. Our hearts go out to the family of Jdimytai Damour.
Victim’s kin file suit in Wal-Mart stampede death [Associated Press]
The family of a New York man who was trampled to death the day after Thanksgiving by a stampede of bargain hunting Wal-Mart shoppers has filed a wrongful death lawsuit.
The family also filed notice that Nassau County, on Long Island, and its police department will be sued.
The lawsuit against Wal-Mart and the Long Island mall where it is located was filed Wednesday in state Supreme Court in the Bronx on behalf of Elsie Damour Phillipe. Phillipe is the sister of victim Jdimytai Damour (DHMEE’-tree Di-MOHR’), and is the court-appointed administrator of his estate.
Damour, a temporary worker hired for the holiday season, was crushed to death when some 2,000 customers stormed into the Valley Stream store.
None of the defendants in the lawsuit immediately responded to requests for comment.
Posted by Luke West | Permalink
A Wal-Mart employee in Oregon has accused Wal-Mart of demoting her because - of all things - she took time off during the Christmas shopping season to undergo an emergency hysterectomy.
According to her complaint, which was filed last week in Oregon’s federal district court, Lynda deBarros had worked for Wal-Mart since mid-2000 and over the last 8 years had received consistently positive evaluations resulting in increased responsibilities. She had advanced from photo technician to assistant manager, and then was transferred to a new store to oversee its construction.
DeBarros began experiencing health problems in October 2007, of which I will let The Oregonian do the describing:
On Nov. 14, 2007, deBarros went to her gynecologist because of excessive menstrual bleeding, documents show. DeBarros “had a strong family history of cancer and was very worried that cancer was the cause of her excessive vaginal bleeding.” On Dec. 3, 2007, her doctor recommended an emergency hysterectomy, which was scheduled for Dec. 10. When deBarros notified her boss, Kenneth Hutchison, about her medical condition, the suit said, he scolded her and told her to go to the doctor on her time, not his.
The moral of the story is apparently this: don’t have emergency health issues during the holidays, as deBarros was advised to postpone the procedure because it was Wal-Mart’s “busiest time of the season” and they needed all hands on deck. All that excessive bleeding she was experiencing? Yeah, you just tough that out until the holiday shopping season is over...you’ll have plenty of time for your emergency surgery after the new year.
Two weeks after returning from FMLA leave, deBarros was demoted from her assistant manager position to a simple associate position. This is the second time in two months an FMLA case has made news in a major state paper - in October a West Virginia woman filed suit against Wal-Mart alleging she was wrongfully fired after she used her FMLA leave to care for her young son who had a rare bowel disorder, requiring 12 months of hospitalization and several surgeries. Despite working for Wal-Mart since 1994 with positive evaluations, Arlene Jett was reprimanded for absenteeism after taking her first FMLA leave. Both cases are ongoing.
Employee in Oregon sues Wal-Mart [The Oregonian]
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. Recently, we also reported on Wal-Mart’s poor treatment of its disabled workforce.
Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on these individual stories, highlighting cases that warrant further attention because of the insight each gives in its own way on how Wal-Mart feels about its employees.
John Lennex v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.
John Lennex was hired by Wal-Mart on September 7, 2004, as a Bicycle Assembler. You take your kid into Wal-Mart, buy him the latest Huffy bicycle (now conveniently made overseas, since Wal-Mart forced the bike manufacturer to go broke), and John Lennex will put it together for you. Or he would have, had he not been fired.
Lennex has coronary artery disease. He requires a defibrillator to regulate his heart beat, and is limited in his life activities. He is recognized as have a life-limiting disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. And when he was hired, his managers were well aware of his condition.
When he was hired, bicycle assemblers were also allowed a certain comfort in their job – that is, they were actually allowed to sit on a stool while they built their bikes. When he received a new department manager in 2005, however, this changed. His new supervisor, Tye Wilson, told the employees to say bye-bye to stools or chairs. Despite knowing of Lennex’s disability and the fact that stools were readily available, AND that Lennex had performed his job admirably to that point, Wilson refused a request by Lennex for a reasonable accommodation that would let him continue to sit.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Mary Bach, a woman from Murrysville, Pennsylvania has won her fourth lawsuit against Wal-Mart after being over-charged for a dress. Bach, nicknamed the ‘scanner-lady’ has gained a certain level of fame recently, as a champion of consumers for filing numerous small-claims suits against retailers for what she calls: “electronic shopper-lifting.” She has sued Kmart and Eckard after being over-charged for products. Wal-Mart plead no-contest, having violated a consumer-protection law and had to pay Bach $164 including court fees. “Bach said it is not about the money” says WPXI-TV (Pa.), who also quoted her as saying:
“Here you have retailers who can reach into your wallet by overcharging you multiple times and they then shrug their shoulders and say, ‘oops it’s a mistake.’”
The Associated Press said that Bach was a key player in passing a law which requires the state to conduct inspections of price-scanners.
Wal-Mart is accustomed to being sued over pricing issues. Just over a year ago, we posted a story from the Manitowoc Herald Times Reporter about how Wal-Mart was fined almost $90,000 from the Wisconsin State Legislature for over-charging for bulk food items.
Woman Sues Wal-Mart Over Price Problems [WPXI-TV (Pa.)]:
DELMONT, Pa.—A woman won a lawsuit against Wal-Mart after she claimed she was overcharged for purchases at the chain’s store in Delmont.
Wal-Mart pleaded no contest and will play Mary Bach $164, including $64 in court fees.
In an earlier version of this story, Channel 11 posted only a portion of Wal-Mart’s response to the litigation. The following is Wal-Mart’s response in its entirety:
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Luke West | Permalink
Time to pull that roll of aluminum foil out of the pantry, because they’re after us, and they want our braaainnns…
Or so says Jerry Rose, one of our neighbors to the north in British Columbia, who has filed one of the more bizarre lawsuits I have seen in some time. Rose is after $2 billion in damages from Microsoft, Telus, Wal-Mart, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (among others) for the usual list of charges: mind control, satanism, and witchcraft. We’ll look around and see if we can get a copy of his complaint, but according to the National Post:
Mr. Rose’s claim states “that he has been subject to invasive brain computer interface technology, research, experiments, field studies and surgery” and also named the University of B.C. and the B.C. College of Physicians and Surgeons as defendants.
Not to be outdone, an attorney for Microsoft assured the judge that there is in fact no scientific evidence that mind control is possible, although anyone that has been forced to watch a Sarah Palin rally may beg to differ. We’re not sure what role Wal-Mart has played in all of this, but if I had to guess, witchcraft would be my bet.
Judge Fraser Wilson, while calling the case unusual, has said he will need to be convinced there is nothing in Rose’s claim that could not be litigated before he dismisses it.
B.C. judge hears $2B lawsuit against Microsoft, Wal-Mart over brain control [CanWest News Service]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Hey, Wal-Mart? Do you feel the winds blowing today? Ah, yes, the winds of change. Indeed, that key demographic of Wal-Mart women across the country surely voted their pocketbooks and their consciences - and helped the electorate hand a decisive victory to Senator Barack Obama.
You can bet the Walton family and CEO Lee Scott weren’t doing a victory dance last night when the election was called for Obama. Oh, sure the company’s pr and gov relations guy, Leslie Dach has tried really, really, really, really hard recently (especially as things were looking really promising for Obama) to convince everyone that Wal-Mart was “non-partisan” – even going so far as to air infomercials for both candidates in the company’s stores. But, those “non-partisan” activities, like so many things Wal-Mart does are mere distractions from what the company was really up to.
In August, the Wall Street Journal exposed Wal-Mart’s mandatory meetings to attempt to instruct its employees to vote against Democrats and Senator Obama – oh, sure they nuanced the message in some settings, but the point was clear. And, the company implemented a plan at the beginning of 2008 to train all of its managers how to fight the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) should Obama be elected. During the presidential campaign, we saw anti-EFCA ads (and anti-Obama – walking the legal line in various forms) from several different organizations - including (but, not limited to): the Workforce Fairness Institute; Center for Union Facts; The Center for Consumer Freedom and of course, the Employment Policies Institute. Since these groups don’t disclose all of their contributors, it’s hard to prove that Wal-Mart gave them money, but we have a pretty good idea that Wal-Mart invested a nice chunk of change in their efforts. Maybe someone should ask Wal-Mart.
For the past eight years, Wal-Mart has had a free pass to trample workers’ rights - in part due to the ineffectiveness of the NLRB – and in part due to a system that has favored employers. The company’s business model of paying appallingly low wages, offering catastrophic, unaffordable health care plans, forcing employees to forgo overtime pay, manipulating employees’ schedules as punishment for standing up to the company, discriminating against employees and a host of other issues – evident from a multitude of lawsuits - and from the mouths of employees themselves - is finally in jeopardy.
Yep, change is coming. With an Obama presidency and the Democratic gains in Congress, average Americans – including Wal-Mart workers - will once more have a say and stand a chance of getting a fair shake. Wal-Mart knows it – and fears it.
Expect to see the company increase its lobbying expenditures in the next few months and ramp up its efforts to mislead its employees about EFCA – which by the way, could finally give its employees the ability to stand up to the company. And, expect to see even worse treatment of employees to send a clear message to them about who is still in charge (and Wal-Mart just doesn’t ever seem to learn on this front).
Posted by Media Team | 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.
Wal-Mart Watch will be focusing on these individual stories, highlighting those cases that warrant further attention because of the light each sheds in its own way on how Wal-Mart does business.
Maria Sutherland v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. [Filed September 10, 2008; Case ongoing]
Sutherland was hired in the deli department at in Indiana Wal-Mart in 1999. In 2006, she was approached by a co-worker, Arturo Aguas, at 9am. He informed her that she had boxes in the cooler that needed to be retrieved. When she went to the cooler, what she found was Aguas waiting for her with a present and card – the card was inappropriate, indicating that Aguas wanted to “spend many years loving” Sutherland. He then grabbed Sutherland and tried to kiss her, and blocked the exit when she tried to leave. He also attempted to reach underneath her skirt and shirt. When Sutherland was finally able to push him off, she was so upset that she left work early. It was the first time in 7 years that she had done so.
The next morning she reported the incident, turned in romantic notes from Aguas, and stated she did not want to work with him again. Despite that, she was directed back to work with Aguas and told to act as if nothing had happened while an investigation was conducted.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Well, my faithful blog readers, after two years of working on Wal-Mart issues and more than a year as the main editor of this blog, our Friday Blog Round-Up today will be my last post. I hope you all continue reading, commenting and working to challenge Wal-Mart’s business practices. Enjoy the writing of my Wal-Mart Watch colleagues and try to keep the infighting to a minimum. As for now - on to the week’s blogs!
BLOGGERS WEIGH IN ON “EMPLOYEES SPEAK OUT”
Real Voices, Some More Wild Stuff [Working Life]
Wal-Mart Watch has set up a website where you can actually hear and read about the actual workers who have to put up with the oppressive behavior of The Beast. This is part of the picture: the Great Robbery that we have all endured for a number of decades--wages not going up (even though productivity goes up), no health care, no pensions--plays out, day-to-day, in those aisles at Wal-Mart.
The voice of the workers (Part 1) [Writing on the Wal]
What you get there is a look behind Walmart’s PR curtain to see what employees are really thinking, but too afraid to tell their supervisors since they don’t have a union to protect them. Indeed, let’s start this series there, in the category that Wal-Mart Watch calls corporate culture.
After the jump, union-busting in Canada, bottle water, Nike’s suit against the Bentonville behemoth and Sarah Palin.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Alex Goldschmidt | Permalink
Nike Inc., the world’s largest athletic shoemaker, has sued Wal-Mart for allegedly selling footwear that infringes one of its patented designs. Or so says the footwear giant, who filed a patent infringement suit against the retail giant on Monday in federal district court in Illinois.
The case revolves around two of Nike’s designs, both having been patented back in late 2004. As you can see by photos included in Nike’s complaint, Wal-Mart’s shoe looks like a pretty spot-on match, at least design-wise. Kudos to Wal-Mart’s apparel design team - if your own products aren’t selling, why not copy those that do? And who wouldn’t want a shoe with pogo springs right in the heel?! I couldn’t find the offending models online, although most of Wal-Mart’s own athletic shoes appear to retail for between $10-25...I would guess the original Nike version sells for just a little bit more. Several Nike models, in fact, use the copied design and generally retail for $90 and above. You can draw your own conclusions, though my guess is that these two shoes are similar on face value only - it wouldn’t surprise me if for $15, Wal-Mart’s springs were filled with marshmallow or tiny foam peanuts.
The retail mega-chain has faced a couple of infringement suits already this year - recently by Pepe Jeans, and prior to that by Adidas, which settled its case with Wal-Mart in September. You can read more about those two instances here, here, and here.
Read Nike’s complaint here.
Nike sues Wal-Mart, alleges patent infringement [Rueters]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Wal-Mart and rapper-turned-fashion-designer, Master P (Percy Miller) are being sued by a London-based jeans designer, Pepe Jeans London LLC, the latest in a long line of infringement suits brought against the retailer. Hip hop site BallerStatus (which, by the way, gets the award for coolest publication we’ve ever referenced) has the full story: Pepe alleges that the stylized “P” logo used for Wal-Mart/Miller’s “P. Miller” jeans infringes on Pepe Jeans’ logo, which also features a stylized “P.”
Master P And Wal-Mart Sued By Pepe Jean [Baller Status]
In documents filed in a Manhattan federal court last week, the company alleges that the logo infringes on the Pepe Jeans P logo, which is a stylized P enclosed in a circle. They also cite the use of the logo on P. Miller jeans’ hangtags.
This isn’t the first time Wal-Mart has been sued for infringement. Earlier this year, Wal-Mart settled a long-standing infringement lawsuit with Adidas, says a September 4, 2008 article in Footwear News:
In the original lawsuit, filed in August 2005, Adidas accused Wal-Mart of violating and diluting its trademark. The athletic brand’s complaint derived primarily from the retailer’s sale of shoes and sandals with two stripes. Adidas claimed the designs aped its three-stripe trademark.
Wal-Mart has also been sued for selling ‘fake’ Fendi Purses and Tommy Hilfiger shirts. From a 2006 article in BusinessWeek:
In 1998, after many rounds in court over several years with Tommy Hilfiger [Wal-Mart] paid out $6.4 million to settle a lawsuit that it was selling fake Hilfiger brand T-shirts. And in 1999 it paid more than $1 million to Nike (NKE) after being sued on similar charges.
Posted by Luke West | 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
Several retailers including Wal-Mart have been named in a nationwide class action for their participation in selling polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and toddler training cups containing the controversial hormone BPA.
This whole BPA - or Bisphenol-A - controversy is not a good thing. BPA is a key compound used in polycarbonate plastics, which are clear and nearly shatter-proof (a good thing), and also possibly toxic and poisoning us and our children daily (apparently bad...very, very bad). These plastics are used to make a variety of common products including baby and water bottles, sports equipment, medical devices, lenses, CDs, and household electronics...a fact that, in the interest of full disclosure, actually made me check the bottom of my water bottle this morning to make sure I wasn’t slowly killing myself.
The lawsuit in question was filed in Georgia, and you can read the (very long) complaint here, in which defendants are accused of manufacturing and selling materials made with BPA despite knowledge of likely adverse affects. In addition to Wal-Mart, retailers such as CVS, Target, and Kroger have been named in the suit. Also named were manufacturers of the bottles themselves, including Evenflo, Gerber, and Playtex. The best part of this whole thing - not only have over a hundred studies been produced in the last decade warning of the adverse affects of BPA, but apparently in deeming the compound safe the FDA decided to rely on only two, both of which were produced by the American Plastics Council. So kudos to the FDA for that.
The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. You can read the release on it below.
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
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube
