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
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
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
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 centers on a new website launched by Wal-Mart Watch which details the retailer’s political contributions, positions on specific legislation, and spending on lobbyists and industry trade groups. The website, Walton Influence, also includes similar information on the Walton family and the family’s related enterprises.
In addition, you’ll read about a number of legal issues, the most important of which could be affecting the health of millions of Americans. Bloomberg News and the San Francisco Chronicle, among others, are reporting on how tests of several of the best-selling brands of bottled water (including Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club private label brands) have been found to contain mixtures of at least 38 different pollutants, including bacteria, fertilizer, and industrial chemicals. These findings could result in a lawsuit against the retail giant.
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. You’ll read about how Maryland’s closing of certain corporate tax loopholes has resulted in millions of dollars in increased state funds, and why employees in Illinois are protesting Wal-Mart’s electioneering activities.
Wal-Mart Watch Weekly Update for Elected Officials [October 16, 2008]
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 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
Over the past two weeks, we’ve been keeping you updated on Wal-Mart;s continued assault on high school sports programs by selling logo school gear without the permission of the school, and without donating any of the profits.
So far, we’ve read news reports of high schools in Washington, Wisconsin and Tennessee that have spoken out about the practice. We sent out an email to supporters last week and heard back from dozens who identified Wal-Marts across the country that are selling high school gear. More reports are sure to come in, and you can bet we’ll be keeping track.
In case you missed it, here’s a little recap:
We first heard about this on September 4, when KXLY-4 News in Washington state broke the story about Cheney High School losing much needed profits because Wal-Mart was selling clothes with their logo on them. Wal-Mart refused to donate any of the profits back to the school.
On September 10, an article from the Kingsport Times-News reported a similar story about Wal-Mart doing the same thing to Science High School in Johnson City, Tennessee - and that its been going on for several years, despite complaints.
Two days later, on September 12, the Cheney Free Press reported that this had been happening in a host of Washington schools, including Medical Lake High School. Reporter Paul Delaney actually got the first response we’ve seen out of Wal-Mart, who defended the practice and claimed that all legal requirements to sell the gear are met.
Then yesterday, NBC-26 from Green Bay revealed that yet another High School was reporting the same problem. They explain:
“Students at Kimberly High School work hard to sell t-shirts and other gear. All proceeds directly help fund school programs like marketing. “The apparel is probably the biggest money maker here at this store,” says Senior Joey Moser. The student shop managers, though, were surprised to learn that other stores like Walmart and Pick ‘n Save also sell their gear. Moser says, “We don’t get any of that money."”
It’s questionable whether Wal-Mart has the legal right to sell the gear without permission, there’s no question that it’s unethical. Wal-Mart is the biggest company in the world, run by the richest family in the country, and constantly bills itself as a “store of the community”. There’s no excuse for undercutting local schools, and keeping the profits for itself.
The bottom line is that Wal-Mart is taking a huge chunk out of school budgets, and jeopardizing the future of local sports programs.
We’ll keep you updated.
Posted by Media Team | Permalink
In an opinion delivered yesterday, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Bernstein wrote that the Pennsylvania Superior Court should reject a Wal-Mart appeal and affirm a 2006 jury verdict that found over 186,000 current and former Pennsylvania Wal-Mart employees were not properly compensated for off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. He also sought to support his awarding last year of an additional $62 million in statutory liquidated damages. His opinion was delivered after Wal-Mart had contended in post-verdict motions that, among other things, the two class actions (Braun and Hummel were combined at trial) should never have been certified in the first place.
The total judgment against Wal-Mart in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart currently stands at nearly $188 million.
According to Bernstein, “the trial evidence showed that Wal-Mart corporate leaders ceased all record-keeping of employees’ rest break periods after numerous lawsuits over the missed rest breaks were filed.” Bernstein allowed the jury to infer that Wal-Mart changed its policy to ensure that there were no records of missed rest breaks, an argument Wal-mart sought to preclude at trial, only to be denied.
The case is now with the Pennsylvania Superior Court on appeal.
Judge Upholds $185 Million Award in Wal-Mart Class Action [The Legal Intelligencer]
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Today we received a letter from Jeff Jordan at the Federal Election Commission responding to the formal complaint Wal-Mart Watch filed against Wal-Mart for holding meetings warning employees not to vote for Democrats.
Wal-Mart will be notified with our official complaint within five days, and the FEC has promised to notify us when “final action” is taken. We’ll let you know when we hear more.
Read the full response letter here, and read the original complaint letter here.
Posted by Eric Bull | 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.
Deborah Metcalf v. Wal-Mart Stores East
In the process of scouring the country searching for egregious examples of Wal-Mart malfeasance, we came across this interesting little case filed earlier this year in Oklahoma. On its surface, it’s a retaliatory discharge case – however, the plaintiff here, Deborah Metcalf, was fired for blowing the whistle on what should be considered some pretty repulsive conduct.
Among the many programs funded by the United States Government, we’re going to focus on one in particular – the federal WIC program. WIC stands for Women, Infants, and Children, and is a special supplemental nutrition program funded by grants by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and administered in Oklahoma by the OK State Department of Health. Basically, WIC provides food and education to low-income women, infants and children deemed eligible for the program. The program’s website tagline delivers the following:
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children - better known as the WIC Program - serves to safeguard the health of low-income women, infants, & children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk by providing nutritious foods to supplement diets, information on healthy eating, and referrals to health care.
Deborah Metcalf, at the time of her firing, was an employee working at the Wal-Mart Pharmacy located within store #47 in Sallisaw, Oklahoma. In 2001, the Sallisaw Wal-Mart became a participant in the WIC program. Before we go any further, perhaps a little more information is needed on how the WIC program works:
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Yesterday, the New York Times’ editorial rebuked Wal-Mart for its worker intimidation during this federal election cycle. The NYT editorial refers to the front page WSJ story on Wal-Mart mobilizing its managers to vote Republican in the upcoming elections. The Times chastises the company not only for its relentless anti-union efforts, including numerous citations by the National Labor Relations Board, but also for its blatant violation federal election laws.
According to the Times, “Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act…The Federal Election Commission should investigate the allegations swiftly and aggressively. The ‘rogue executive’ defense is a well-trodden excuse that should fool no one. Providing workers with a list of members of Congress who, in Wal-Mart’s view, support bad legislation that would worsen workers lives seems indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.”
Recap: “indistinguishable from telling them who to vote against.” This type of coercion has proved an integral part of Wal-Mart’s business practices. One can only hope that the FEC will fulfill its duty to investigate, particularly when the nation’s largest private employer has attempted to silence one of the few measures its workers have to speak out against it.
Read the full reprimand below. Well done New York Times…bravo.
Mixing Politics and Wal-Mart [New York Times]
It is hardly news that Wal-Mart will do whatever it takes to keep unions out of its stores, from closing down a unionized outlet to firing pro-union workers. The National Labor Relations Board has already ruled several times that Wal-Mart has violated the law by retaliating against workers for supporting a union.
Facing the prospect that union-friendly Democrats could win both the White House and Congress, the retail giant is now turning its attention to this year’s election.
Last week, several labor groups filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, accusing Wal-Mart of violating election rules. They acted after The Wall Street Journal reported that thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads had been called to mandatory meetings and told that if Democrats won in November they would likely pass a law to make it easier to unionize companies. According to The Journal, Wal-Mart executives warned that could force the company to cut jobs, while workers would be forced to pay union dues and might have to go on strike.
Telling workers who are paid by the hour — Wal-Mart department supervisors are hourly workers — how to vote is prohibited under the Federal Election Campaign Act.
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.
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
If you’ve read our FEC complaint by now, you’ll be familiar with our contention that at its training sessions, Wal-Mart was explicitly advocating against the election of Democratic candidates this coming November because of its fear of possible unionization in the future. You’ll also be familiar with our contention that Wal-Mart is limited, under both the United States Code and the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, from directing its political meetings or “trainings” at anything beyond its stockholders and executive or administrative personnel. Certainly, the issue is serious enough to warrant a looksee from the Federal Election Commission - now that multiple labor groups have sent a complaint of their own, similar to the one submitted by Wal-Mart Watch last week, we’ll see if the FEC decides to initiate an investigation.
If that does happen, attorney Bob Bauer has been helpful enought to give a brief guide on the federal regulations involved - you might want to read it in shifts, as staring too long at federal regulatory language has been known to cause eyes to bleed, etc. Bauer is the Chair of the Political Law Group of Perkins Coie LLP, and the author of numerous books including: United States Federal Election Law (1982, 1984), Soft Money Hard Law: A Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2002) and More Soft Money Hard Law: The Second Edition of the Guide to the New Campaign Finance Law (2004).
The Wal-Mart Matter [posted August 14, 2008]
The Wal-Mart controversy, now headed toward the Federal Election Commission, presents interesting questions about how the campaign finance laws treat coercive political conduct by a corporate employer. As the allegations have been framed in press reports, Wal-Mart is claimed to have breached two requirements for lawful corporate political action: (1) it spent corporate funds outside the limited allowances for election-related speech, and (2) it did so through coercive means, subjecting employees to job-related pressures to support one candidate or party rather than another.
FEC rules specify in fair detail when and how corporations may spend resources in relation to federal elections without breaking the core campaign spending prohibition. 11 C.F.R. Part 114. The most liberal of the allowances is for “partisan” communications to the “restricted class,” of executives and shareholders, and a corporation may also repeatedly solicit them for contributions to the company’s political action committee. It can arrange for the candidates favored by the company to address this defined group.
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.
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
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 focuses on the big story of the week - Wal-Mart’s efforts to mobilize its managers across the country to warn of a Democratic win in November. The company has been holding mandatory meetings for its store managers and department supervisors (possibly in violation of state and federal election law), who are being warned that if Democrats win in November it could lead to potential store unionization. The meetings focus on a piece of proposed legislation called the Employee Free Choice Act, which could make it easier for stores to unionize if it’s the wish of a simple majority of store employees. Read all the major stories on Wal-Mart’s efforts, plus reaction from Wal-Mart Watch Executive Director David Nassar.
Beyond the possible election law violations, the Washington Post and Chicago Tribune report on new toy safety legislation making its way through Congress. In addition, more legal problems for Wal-Mart - the first Salmonella-related lawsuit has been filed, and Wal-Mart is the defendant. Also, a new story in the Arkansas Business Journal describes how Wal-Mart knew of the existence of labor violations prior to the filing of the recent wage/hour class actions.
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
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
In one small northern Vermont town, two developers are battling each other over the fate of a proposed Wal-Mart store. One mall owner will lose big-time if the Wal-Mart is built, and the other will make millions off the store. The mall owner is apparently willing to live with the Wal-Mart---as long as it doesn’t have a grocery store component that competes with the mall’s grocery store. On April 22, 2008, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart has been trying to get into the town of St. Albans, Vermont for the past 14 years. The company is now in the thick of its second attempt to push its way onto a cornfield across from the St. Albans Drive-In, just off Route 89, a few miles south of the Canadian border.
Wal-Mart lost its first attempt in 1995 in a case that went all the way to the Vermont Supreme Court. In this second try, local officials have again given the store its blessing, as well as the regional commission set up under Vermont’s Act 250 land use control law. But the Vermont Natural Resources Council (VNRC) and local residents have filed the legal paperwork needed for a “Motion to Alter” to ask the District 6 Commission to reverse its position and rescind the granting of an Act 250 permit that would allow the Wal-Mart superstore. In addition to the VNRC, the citizen’s group the Northwest Citizens for Responsible Growth (NWCRG) and farmers Marie Frey and Richard Hudak, appealed. Hudak owns a prominent farm stand in St. Albans town just down Route 7. The appeal charges that the Act 250 District 6 commission, which is the local panel that hears Act 250 cases in the St. Albans area, ignored its own findings when it granted the permit. According to the Vermont Business Magazine, the appeal cites the finding that the superstore would pollute a nearby brook, increase traffic congestion, and cost as many as 200-297 jobs, and result in the closure of over 40 businesses in the abutting city of St. Albans. The District 6 Commission also was warned that the project would pave over prime agricultural land, and that the developer had not compensated for the loss of those soils.
The Commission said it agreed with all these findings, yet voted to grant a permit to the developer, Jeff Davis, who is also responsible for a Wal-Mart in Williston, Vermont, 35 minutes south of this site.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Al Norman | 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.
A seventy-seven year old Nevada resident is suing Wal-Mart for their unlawful, discriminatory employment practice which caused him to be terminated from his position. Mr. Gold was hired on as an electronics cashier for an unfinished Wal-Mart store. Construction at the Wal-Mart was still being finished up in January, when employees were brought in to stock the store. In February of 2008, Mr. Gold reported to work like usual; little did he know that this would be his last and most embarrassing day at Wal-Mart.
The Wal-Mart store was nearing completion, so much so that employees were putting the finishing touches on stocking the store shelves for the grand opening. Yet, one problem remained. Wal-Mart had not yet finished the plumbing system in the building, forcing employees on the clock to use an outdoor port-o-potty.
On February 28, Mr. Gold, needing to use the port-o-potty, headed toward the building’s exit. Stopped at the door by a Wal-Mart supervisor, Mr. Gold was ordered to go back to work. Mr. Gold explained that he needed to use the restroom, but again was told that he needed to return to work.
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
Earlier this week, Wisconsin Public Radio hosted a discussion on state budget shortfalls, tax avoidance, and ways for states to make up lost revenue:
With the recent Wisconsin budget shortfall, lawmakers are examining ways to increase revenue. After nine, John Munson and his guests discuss the impact of corporate tax loopholes and how stopping them could help fix the state budget. Guests:
- Russ Decker, Wisconsin Senator (D-Schofield).
- Michael Mazerov, Senior Fellow, State Fiscal Project, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Washington, DC.
Check out the podcast. Wisconsin is currently one of the states that has gone after companies like Wal-Mart for avoiding corporate income tax, so the discussion is especially relevant there.
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
Similar to other suits filed since 2006 against big employers (think Boeing, John Deere and General Dynamics), the 401(k) suit against Wal-Mart—Braden v. Wal-Mart was filed in March and is currently seeking class-action status—claims that the company breached its duties as a fiduciary by allowing its 401(k) plan participants to be charged “unreasonably expensive” fees. In its answer, Wal-Mart said disclosures about such things as “how investments options were selected” or “revenue sharing arrangements” are “demonstrably immaterial to any investment decision faced by participants.”
In addition, Wal-Mart accused the suit of disregarding the relation of the fees to the overall costs of administering the plan and ignoring “the economics of participant directed individual account plans.” The company pointed out that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) does not call for plan fiduciaries to consider only price when selecting investment options or select the least expensive options.
The case was filed on March 27, 2008, against Wal-Mart on behalf of the Wal-Mart Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, or ERISA. Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., alleges that Wal-Mart and others, as fiduciaries of Wal-Mart’s retirement plan, failed to act solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, and failed to exercise the required skill, care, prudence, and diligence in administering the Plan’s assets from January 31, 2002, through the present.
The complaint claims Wal-Mart selected and offered to Plan participants unreasonably expensive retail funds, despite the ready availability of reasonably priced high-quality investment options. As a result, the plan squandered tens of millions of dollars of participants’ retirement savings in order to pay for overpriced mutual funds, which, on top of everything, significantly underperformed their benchmarks. This resulted in larger fees being spent on inferior products.
Read the rest of this story ...
Posted by Corey Himrod | Permalink
View Wal-Mart Watch's videos on YouTube