Dis-satisfied Customers (Ripped OFF)
Wheelchair-Bound Job Applicant Sues Wal-Mart for ADA Violations --
$3,583,399 New Mexico Award
Plaintiff, who had lost the use of his legs in a construction accident,
sued Wal-Mart under the ADA after the store rejected his application for
employment six times. Each time plaintiff sought employment, a personnel
manager informed him that the store had "no openings for a person in a
wheelchair."During plaintiff's last attempt, a manager allegedly told him
that the store 3Ž4already had one of his kind in the garden center."
The EEOC used Wal-Mart records to document that the store had more than 133
openings during the time period that the plaintiff sought employment and
that plaintiff was qualified for at least 83 of those jobs. Plaintiff
submitted a video tape which established that he led an active life and was
able to lift 16 foot
boards, plaster walls and load bricks onto a
Wal-Mart contended that plaintiff was not "qualified" under the ADA because
he was considered 100% disabled under the Social Security Act and was
receiving Social Security Disability Income.
The jury awarded plaintiff $75,000 for compensatory damages, $8,399 for
back pay and $3.5 million for punitive damages.
E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart, U.S. District Court, District of New Mexico, Case No.
94-CV-1076. Richard R. Trujillo, Mary Jo O^?Neill and Trisha Kirtley,
Phoenix, AZ for plaintiff. Bonnie Stapleton, Albuquerque, NM for Wal-Mart.
Female Receiving-Department Workers Harassed by Co-Worker - $1,977,000 New
Plaintiffs, employees in the receiving department of a Sam^?s Club, informed
a supervisor that a co-worker was making obscene comments to them and
touching them inappropriately. The supervisor, who witnessed some of the
conduct, reported it the assistant manager in charge of the receiving
department. Although the supervisor wanted to write up the complaints, the
manager told him to wait and see if the harassing employee changed his
Instead, the harassing employee continued the harassment. Rather than take
disciplinary action, management promoted him to supervisor. One plaintiffquit; the other one stayed on the job, but contacted the EEOC. Before
meeting with the EEOC, management reassigned the harassing employee to
another department, but he continued to harass plaintiff. Subsequently, the
second plaintiff quit.
Ten days after the second plaintiff quit, the harassing employee was
arrested on criminal charges of sexual assault, false imprisonment and
aggravated assault of his girlfriend. He was not terminated. After the
harassing employee was convicted of two felonies, store officials gave him a
leave of absence to serve his jail sentence. The store terminated him after
he failed to return to work when his leave of absence expired.
Plaintiffs presented evidence that no Wal-Mart manager was ever trained to
deal with sexual harassment issues. Moreover, the store^?s sole policy on
sexual harassment was a two paragraph statement contained in the employee
handbook. A district manager admitted that he had never seen the sexual
harassment policy until after being deposed by plaintiff^?s counsel.
The jury awarded one plaintiff $1.364 million and the other plaintiff
$613,000 on their claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and
Cathy Jean Coates v. Wal-Mart, 1st Judicial District (NM) District Court,
Case No. SF 95-2409. Stephen E. Tinkler and Merit Bennett, Sante Fe, NM for
plaintiffs. Mark James and Steve Scholl, Albuquerque, NM for Wal-Mart.
2001 New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Massachusetts Wal-Mart paid $1 million in
fines to settle charges that it violated environmental laws.
1999-02-26 Santa Fe, NM. Wal-Mart paid $2.3 million to settle Sexual
Harassment at Sam's Club. Wal-Mart has lost its court appeal in a case
involving sexual harassment filed by two of its former "associates" in New
Mexico. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld a $2.3 million award to the 2