Kia Franklin
Wal-Mart Pays the Price for Employment Discrimination
Check out this FindLaw article on a woman’s lawsuit against Wal-mart. The woman, a pharmacist at the company, felt she was fired in retaliation for pointing out (and requesting a correction of) gender-inequalities in pay. The court agreed with her. I’m sure the $1 million in punitive damages sent a clear message to Wal-Mart and, to other employers, that discrimination is not only wrong, it is also expensive:
Fired Wal-Mart Pharmacist Awarded $2M(AP) - PITTSFIELD, Mass.-A pharmacist who claimed she was fired by Wal-Mart after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues has won a nearly $2 million award against the retail giant.
A Berkshire Superior Court jury concluded Wal-Mart discriminated against Cynthia Haddad and awarded her nearly $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages Tuesday.
Click here to find out more!“It sends a message that you can’t treat people poorly because of who they are,” said David Belfort, Haddad’s attorney.
Wal-Mart’s attorneys didn’t comment after the verdict.
Haddad was fired in April 2004 after more than 10 years at a Wal-Mart store in Pittsfield. She claimed in court that she was fired because she asked to be paid the same as her male counterparts, including a bonus given to pharmacy managers. The company paid the bonus, then fired her two weeks later.
Lawyers for the retailer said she was fired because she left the pharmacy unattended and allowed a technician to use her computer security code to issue prescriptions during her absence, including a fraudulent prescription for a painkiller.
Haddad’s lawyers argued that the prescription was filled 18 months before she was dismissed and without her knowledge, and that more severe infractions by male pharmacists went unpunished.
Hmmm… I wonder what the outcome would have been had one of the arbitration companies handled this claim?
Posted at 4:59 PM, Jun 20, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
So what action should Wal-Mart take against an employee who permits a technician to issue fraudulent prescriptions? If Wal-Mart is not permitted to fire such an employee, would you agree that they should not be held liable for such fraudulent prescriptions, or do you believe that they should be held in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't scenario that is the very opposite of justice?
Posted by: Ted | June 20, 2007 09:57 PM
Responding to Ted - Ted why are you assuming that Walmart's attorneys are correct in this situation? What from that blurb gives you any reason to believe Walmart's attorneys over the plaintiff's?? Regardless - if she really was discriminated against, that is the evil we want to cure.... Employers already have the right to fire people for doing fraudulent things.
Posted by: Dana | June 21, 2007 02:33 PM
Ted asks: So what action should Wal-Mart take against an employee who permits a technician to issue fraudulent prescriptions?
The Common Sense Answer: A timely and informed one.
They had a year and a half to investigate this, consider her stance that she did not know about the fraudulent prescription (something Ted seems to dismiss away pretty easily), and then take proper measures. But they waited until she called them out for discriminating. You know, they really should have fired her sooner--it would have been really good for them because it would have allowed them to keep their own little illegal practice (employment discrimination) a secret. But I guess bad karma is good medicine.
Ted Asks: If Wal-Mart is not permitted to fire such an employee, would you agree that they should not be held liable for such fraudulent prescriptions, or do you believe that they should be held in a damned-if-they-do, damned-if-they-don't scenario that is the very opposite of justice?
Ted, you are a master at putting words in my mouth. I never said they should not be permitted to fire her. IF indeed she helped perpetrate fraud, then she should not be employed there. But retaliatory firing and sex discrimination are well-known workplace no-nos. So yes, they're damned-if-they-do allow their employees to perpetrate fraud, damned-if-they-don't give men and women of equivalent employment status equivalent pay.
Posted by: Kia Franklin | June 21, 2007 03:39 PM
Does the IRS still tax the gross amount of the lawsuit payment? If it does, I am sending this plaintiff's name to the Criminal Division to insure she gets almost nothing, after her lawyers get through with their bill.
If the land pirate failed to discuss the tax consequences, she should consult another about a legal malpractice claim. If the legal malpractice lawyer fails to properly warn her, ditto.
Posted by: supremacy claus | June 21, 2007 04:57 PM
I don't see any basis in the law or in sound public policy for a rule that a woman cannot be fired for a dangerous violation of company policy that could expose the pharmacist to substantial liability so long as she can hide it from her employer for eighteen months.
Let's change the scenario a bit: in January 2004, a female Wal-Mart manager uses the n-word in chastising an African-American employee. Can Wal-Mart discipline the manager if the employee waits until July 2005 to report the offense, or does the eighteen-month rule Franklin proposes apply there, also?
Readers interested in the full story of this case, including the parts Franklin left out in her recounting, should read Overlawyered.
Posted by: Ted | June 21, 2007 06:19 PM