Posted on 02/25/2005 10:33:51 AM PST by ambrose
Jury Awards $7.5 Million in Wal-Mart Case
Federal Jury Awards Man With Cerebral Palsy $7.5 Million in Wal-Mart Discrimination Case
The Associated Press
Feb. 25, 2005 - A federal jury has ordered Wal-Mart Stores to pay a Long Island man $7.5 million after ruling the retail behemoth discriminated against the man because he has cerebral palsy.
Patrick Brady, 21, was hired for a job in the Wal-Mart pharmacy department in Centereach, N.Y., during the summer of 2002. After one day in the pharmacy, he was reassigned to other responsibilities, including collecting garbage and shopping carts from the parking lot.
The jury in U.S. District Court in Central Islip deliberated one day before ruling on Wednesday that Brady was discriminated against when he was transferred. It also found that Brady was asked impermissible pre-employment questions about his disability, said his lawyer, Douglas H. Wigdor.
Brady, who now works in a Centereach supermarket bagging groceries, said in a statement that he was "very happy the jury believed in me."
The jury award includes $5 million in punitive damages, which Wigdor said was likely to be reduced to $600,000 since federal law limits the amount that can be awarded for punitive damages. The jury also awarded Mr. Brady $2.5 million in compensatory damages, Wigdor said.
Christi Gallagher, a spokesman for the Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart, said in a statement that the company would appeal.
"We appreciate the service of the jurors but disagree with their decision," Gallagher said. "We feel very strongly that Mr. Brady did not suffer discrimination in our store."
Oh, I quit shopping there years ago. For no reason other than it is ALWAYS packed! But I do have my reservations about Wal-Mart. However, I have been told to be careful posting bad things about Wal-Mart on this site.....
As a lawyer I usually start the day wondering what in the world the legal profession and the judiciary will do to lower the respect for the profession and the legal system even further. Sometimes it even takes until after noon to find out. Oy!
I hate getting caught up in reactionary thinking where we are somehow obligated to defend Wal-Mart because some leftwing pinkos attack it. Remember, even a broken clock is right twice a day...
As for this jury award... seems crazy, but I didn't hear the evidence..
This story seems odd. Here they go so far as to hire some people with room temperature.
It's true!
The other day, when walking out, the guy that checks your receipt seemed to be napping. Rather than get called back, I tapped him on the shoulder to check my stuff.
When he fell over and didn't get up I got scared and ran.
I'm shopping at K-Mart from now on. ;)
In a word, no. Source please?
Only thing I have against Walmart is their insistance on buying Chinese made products.
I guess they have to make money somehow, but not out of my walet.
Personal experiance talking to most of the night shift employess at a local wal-mart plus I was friends with the personal manager and a co-manager at another wal-mart who verified the information.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=walmart+employees+on+welfare&spell=1
"One of the most telling of all the criticisms of Wal-Mart is to be found in a February 2004 report by the Democratic Staff of the House Education and Workforce Committee. In analyzing Wal-Mart's success in holding employee compensation at low levels, the report assesses the costs to US taxpayers of employees who are so badly paid that they qualify for government assistance even under the less than generous rules of the federal welfare system. For a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store, the government is spending $108,000 a year for children's health care; $125,000 a year in tax credits and deductions for low-income families; and $42,000 a year in housing assistance. The report estimates that a two-hundred-employee Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers $420,000 a year, or about $2,103 per Wal-Mart employee. That translates into a total annual welfare bill of $2.5 billion for Wal-Mart's 1.2 million US employees.
Wal-Mart is also a burden on state governments. According to a study by the Institute for Labor and Employment at the University of California, Berkeley, in 2003 California taxpayers subsidized $20.5 million worth of medical care for Wal-Mart employees. In Georgia ten thousand children of Wal-Mart employees were enrolled in the state's program for needy children in 2003, with one in four Wal-Mart employees having a child in the program.[9] "
Don't get mad at Walmart - get mad at the Congresscritters and current administration who create the environment for companies to move jobs overseas.
Most everything the DNC does is legal, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.
That's twice in this post that you have alluded to having "to be careful posting bad things about Wal-Mart on this site".
Okay you've been warned.
Was it a cryptic note?
Did they threaten you with violence?
Gonna kidnap your kids?
Inquiring minds and all that ...
According to many, you should fall down on your knees and be THANKFUL to the Employer (cue choirs of angels) for deigning to let you work for him/her.
Nice try, but if you think I am going to post anything negative about current trade policy you are crazy. It is a very quick way to get ones account banned from this site and a popular method that 'free'traders use to have their critics removed.
Try again. :)
LOL!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Or instead of getting mad, simply direct your purchasing dollars to companies that don't engage in Wal-Mart's tactics.
For ex., I buy all my sneakers from New Balance - probably the only sneaker company left that assembles them in the 'ol USA (S Carolina, I believe).
As I understand it, all employees (full and part-time) are allowed to participate following the usual probationary period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.