Originally posted by: raildogg
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: raildogg
Sigh.
This kid doesn't get it.
I wasn't expecting much from somone who previously said they love Bush.
You haven't provided ANYTHING that makes Wal-Mart ANY different from ANY other corporation in America. EVERY large corporation has its detractors, BUT Wal-Mart has many more since its much more powerful than any other corporation.
Have I said Wal-Mart is perfect?
It was me who started a thread suggesting to not shop at Wal-Mart and in doing so, you are supporting slave labor in China. Did you just realize Wal-Mart is this evil in the past few hours?
Next.
So, you're telling corporations as large as Wal-Mart going to have more legal issuse? Prove it. Find a company with a legal history simaller to this.
Current Legal Developments
Concerning Wal-Mart
Latest News - Newly Updated!
Lawsuits Surge As More Wal-Mart Workers Seek Pay For Overtime. The latest reports indicate that Wal-Mart is fighting 38 different state and federal lawsuits filed by hourly workers in 30 states, accusing the company of systematically forcing them to work long hours off the clock. Two years ago, Wal-Mart settled a similar suit in Colorado reportedly for $50 million. The terms of the settlement were confidential, and Wal-Mart will say only that the actual amount is far less than has been reported. Most lawsuits are waiting to be certified as class actions so thousands of workers with similar claims can be represented together. According to the New York Times, June 25, 2002, 23 states are awaiting rulings for class action status, two states were denied class status but are appealing, and three states have been granted class action status. Two additional states, Mississippi being one, joined the ?off -the-clock? lawsuits bringing the total to the current 30 states. Many of the 30 pending lawsuits claim that Wal-Mart withheld overtime pay in a companywide effort to contain overhead and undersell competitors. Although its policy prohibits off-the-clock work, Wal-Mart has created a system of rewards and punishments that critics say gives managers strong incentives to demand such work. Under one bedrock policy described in a deposition by a senior payroll executive, store managers are ordered to keep payroll costs below a target that headquarters sets for every store. If a store misses its target, several former executives said that the manager faces a reprimand and sometimes demotion or dismissal. Wal-Mart gives store managers another incentive to squeeze down labor costs by pegging annual bonuses to the profits of individual stores, a system rare among the big retailers. Wal-Mart declined to provide compensation figures, but according to depositions and interviews, many store managers have a base salary of $52,000 with bonuses often running $70,000 to $150,000. Wal-Mart officials played down the extent of unpaid work by saying that employees often came forward to complain only after calling toll-free numbers that lawyers had established to seek information about off-the-clock work. ?Off -the-clock work is not prevalent at Wal-Mart despite the determined efforts of a few plaintiffs? attorneys to make it seem so,? William Wertz said. But lawyers and union officials say that not only is the practice prevalent at Wal-Mart, but that the complaints against Wal-Mart are far greater than at Target, Sears or K-Mart. According to the New York Times, Wal-Mart employees described these types of off-the-clock work: on many evenings when their stores closed, managers locked the front door and prevented workers from leaving ? even those who had clocked out ? until everyone finished straightening the store; employees at stores in several states said managers ordered them to clock out after their eight-hour shifts and then continue working; some employees said that they frequently took it upon themselves to clock out after their regular shift and then return to work, with their manager?s knowledge and approval. These workers said that they feared that if they did not finish their daily tasks before going home, they would be written up or fired.
Wal-Mart Pharmacists File Class-Action Lawsuits Over Pay ? Colorado. Two class-action suits have been filed, one in Colorado?s 2nd Judicial District Court and one in U.S. District Court in Denver, involving more than 8,000 pharmacists who charge Wal-Mart owes them $200 million in pay. According to the complaints, one pharmacist claimed that in one 10- hour shift 200 prescriptions can be filled and up to 3 hours of paperwork is completed at home. Wal-Mart continued to pay their pharmacists for 45 hours. When one pharmacist complained to management that he was working more than 45 hours, he was fired on the charge of misfilling a prescription. William Wertz, spokesperson for Wal-Mart, stated that both cases involve complaints that occurred before 1998, and Wal-Mart has since changed its policy regarding pharmacists? wages. Wertz could not provide details of those policy changes. Wal-Mart?s cost-cutting policies, particularly the lack of staff to pharmacists, is a leading factor for some pharmacists to sue. When Wal-Mart came to Trinidad, Colorado, five independent pharmacists closed their shops because they could not compete with the retail giant.
Wal-Mart Designated ?Merchant of Shame.? The National Organization for Women (NOW) designated Wal-Mart as a ?Merchant of Shame? in recognition of its exceptional performance. This victory over many deserving competitors probably came as a surprise to the general public. Wal-Mart presents itself as a model of retail success and employee-friendly practices. However, in practice, Wal-Mart?s treatment of its women workers is indeed shameful, and those who take advantage of its compliance process often find themselves on the street. According to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission data, women make up almost three-quarters of Wal-Mart sales workers but less than one third of management ? a proportion substantially lower than its competitors? average of 55%. Only one of Wal-Mart?s top 20 officers and 10% of its store managers are female. On average, as the NOW survey reveals, full-time sales associates earn only $6.10 an hour, which frequently leaves their annual earnings below the poverty level with half of these full-time employees qualifying for federal food stamps. Three public interest organizations, Equal Rights Advocates, the Impact Fund and the Public Justice Center have organized a nationwide class action on behalf of current and former female Wal-Mart employees, alleging sex discrimination in promotion, pay and training. If the class is certified, it would be the largest of its kind against a private employer, with as many as 700,000 plaintiffs. This suit serves as a wake-up call to the public in general and to the retail sector in particular.
Wal-Mart Tightens Policy on Gun Sales ? Arkansas. Wal-Mart, the nation?s largest gun seller, has implemented a rule requiring customers to be approved in a background check before they can buy rifles and shotguns; Wal-Mart does not sell handguns. The new policy exceeds federal guidelines and represents a victory for gun-safety advocates. Store managers were told to stop selling firearms in cases in which authorities were not able to determine whether the would-be buyers should be banned from owning a weapon. After Wal-Mart?s own research showed that weapons it sold were being used in crimes, the company began requiring background clearance for all gun buyers, no matter how long it takes.
Wal-Mart Changes Tactics to Settle Lawsuits ? Arkansas. In the last three months, Wal-Mart has settled long-standing claims ranging from slip-and-fall injuries to abductions of customers in store parking lots according to lawyers. Previously those who sued Wal-Mart often found that they had to spend more money litigating than they might recover in damages because Wal-Mart fights claims to the bitter end. According to a 2001 report in USA Today, Wal-Mart was sued about 4,900 times in 2000. Wal-Mart has also been punished more than 60 times in the last six years by judges for concealing or destroying evidence and for delaying customer lawsuits. Wal-Mart officials seem more concerned than their predecessors about the publicity of being sanctioned by judges for keeping evidence from customers and have made their legal department more pro-customer. In May, 2002, without public announcement, Wal-Mart replaced its general counsel Robert K. Rhoads with Tom Mars. Mars, who used to represent clients who sued companies, took the litigation job in January, 2002, replacing Ronald Williams. Mars, a former director of the Arkansas State Police, takes over a department that has grown from 24 lawyers in 1998 to about 80. Wal-Mart also dropped a 13-year old policy of paying many of its outside lawyers a flat, per-case fee, which often discouraged attorneys from spending time needed to respond to customers? demands to produce documents and other evidence before trial. In April, 2002, again without public announcement, Wal-Mart abandoned these flat-fee arrangements; attorneys are now paid on an hourly basis. ?They?re supposedly trying to become a kinder, gentler Wal-Mart,? said Lewis Laska, Wal-Mart Litigation Project Director. ?Lawyers are calling me in a mild state of bewilderment, saying, ?They just offered me $75,000. I tell them to take the money.? They?re so surprised because of Wal-Mart?s reputation, said Laska, and are suspicious because they wonder if they?re somehow overlooking a key element about their case. However, Laska warns that he only has anecdotal evidence that indicates Wal-Mart has changed its legal strategy. While Laska has seen evidence that indicates there is a new willingness to settle cases, he said that Wal-Mart has released nothing that indicates a change in corporate culture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April - June, 2002
Five Wal-Marts Test Used Car Sales. According to USA Today, (Monday, April 22, 2002) Wal-Mart is teaming with Asbury Automotive, the fifth-largest dealership chain, to offer used cars at some of its stores as part of a six-month test project that could go nationwide. Asbury Automotive will open used car stores on the parking lots of five Wal-Mart stores in Houston beginning in May. The stores, which will be called Price 1, will have 70 to 100 used cars up to 4- years old and with less than 75,000 miles. The cars will have no-haggle prices and feature a five-day, no-questions asked, money-back guarantee, a 30-day exchange policy and a 3,300-mile warranty. Buyers also get 12 months of free roadside assistance. The stores will be modeled after Circuit City?s CarMax used car superstore chain, which after getting off to a rough start in 1993, now has 40 stores and has become profitable. Price1 could be the first formidable challenger to CarMax since AutoNation?s used car megastores closed in 1999. While the vehicles will be sold in prefabricated buildings on Wal-Mart lots, the Price 1 stores cannot use the Wal-Mart name, and Wal-Mart, which is leasing the land to Asbury, doesn?t have a financial stake in the company. Asbury Automotive, which has 91 dealerships, sells mainly new cars. It went public in March, trading stock on the New York Stock Exchange. Asbury closed at $17.60 Monday, April 22, 2002, up 26 cents. Asbury officials say that by using the high-profile Wal-Mart stores, they can keep car prices and marketing costs down. ?We are using the best business models of used car chains that have been successful and avoiding the problems of those that weren?t,? says Ken Gilman, CEO of Asbury. Mike Maroone, COO of AutoNation, the largest dealership chain, cautions that Asbury ?won?t be able to leverage the Wal-Mart brand? in its advertising. Wall Street analyst David Campbell of Davenport & Co. says it could be years before Asbury builds the expertise to sell used cars profitably at Wal-Mart locations. Even so, he warns that Wal-Mart?s previous marketing success makes it a potential threat to CarMax. ?CarMax?s biggest concern has been that a large retailer such as Wal-Mart would get into the used car market,? Campbell says.
Wal-Mart Liable in Man?s Death ? Pharmacy Prescription Error ? Widow Awarded $1.27 million ? Arkansas. A jury in DeQueen, Arkansas found Wal-Mart liable in the misfilling of a prescription by a Wal-Mart pharmacist which led to the death of a retired man, age 62, on September 4, 1997. The decedent, a heart patient, had been prescribed Zaroxolyn, a diuretic that was to keep fluid off his heart. Instead, he received Ziac, a betablocker. The decedent took Ziac for 2 1/2 months and began to experience water gain. He was hospitalized for five days in DeQueen to control the water gain until he lost it. When he returned home, the decedent resumed taking Ziac. He was hospitalized about a week later in Texarkana where he stayed a month, only to die about a week later of congestive heart failure. Wal-Mart spokesman, Bill Wertz, said that Wal-Mart admitted their mistake in giving the decedent the wrong drug. Wertz said that the medication problem was discovered and admitted by the workers in the De Queen Wal-Mart pharmacy, near the decedent?s home in Lockesburg, Arkansas. ?We accepted responsibility and did our best to reach a settlement in the family. It was a terrible accident,? Wertz said. ?The issue was whether the misfill was responsible for the man?s death. He was quite seriously ill before we dispensed the medicine.? The decedent?s wife did not pursue punitive damages, which are designed to serve as a financial punishment. Instead, the jury?s verdict, $1.27 million, is for pain, suffering and mental anguish sustained by the decedent?s wife and daughter. According to Wertz, Wal-Mart?s legal team will review its options for appealing the verdict. Wertz said that procedures are in place for checking prescriptions for accuracy. He was not sure what led to the mistake in the decedent?s prescription. Vivian Tucker and John Kenneth Tucker, deceased vs. Wal-Mart, District Court, Sevier (AK) County, Case No.____. Ben Franks, Texarkana, TX, for plaintiff.
Supreme Court Hears Arguments in $1.65 Million Award Against Wal-Mart ? Invasion of Worker?s Privacy ? Arkansas. Attorneys Bobby Odom of Fayetteville and Ray Bunch of Rogers told the Arkansas Supreme Court that Wal-Mart violated the rights of their client, David Clark of Rogers, and that a $1.65 million jury verdict against Wal-Mart should stand. The attorneys said that Wal-Mart conducted an improper search of their client?s home, cast him in a negative light as a result of its actions, and invaded his privacy by intruding upon his home and workshop. The attorneys stated that Clark was humiliated and embarrassed by the media reports about the August 1998 search and seizure. In 2000, a Benton County jury found in favor of Clark and awarded him the largest civil judgment in Benton county history. David Matthews of Rogers, attorney for Wal-Mart, argued that Wal-Mart acted in good faith. He told the justices that newspaper reports were the basis of the defamation and false accusations, not anything that Wal-Mart did. Matthews said that Wal-Mart had Clark?s permission, both verbal and written, to search his home and workshop, so his rights were not violated. Clark worked in the maintenance department at Wal-Mart?s office in Bentonville and repaired damaged merchandise for the company at a business he operated out of his home. Wal-Mart?s Loss Prevention employees and Rogers police searched Clark?s home in August, 1998, and seized computer components, electronic devices, tools and other items. A total of 437 items, which Wal-Mart alleged Clark had taken from the store, were piled in Clark?s front yard before being hauled away as evidence. Loss Prevention employees said that they had been investigating Clark and other employees in connection with an in-house theft ring. Clark was not arrested or charged with a crime. He was fired from Wal-Mart about a week after the search. Four hundred of the items were returned to Wal-Mart, and Clark was allowed to keep the remaining 37. After an 11-day trial in 2000, a jury found in favor of Clark and awarded him and his wife $1.65 million in combined actual and punitive damages.
Wal-Mart Wage Suit Goes Class Action ? Texas. According to the Houston Chronicle, an Angleton, Texas judge has granted class-action status to a lawsuit brought by four former Wal-Mart employees claiming that Wal-Mart cheated them out of wages. The ruling marks the first time a judge in the United States has certified a wage dispute against Wal-Mart as a class action, a spokesman for Wal-Mart said Monday, May 20. The ex-employees claim that their Wal-Mart superiors required them to work ?off the clock? and miss rest and meal breaks as a condition of their employment. Their attorneys, who say that the estimated number of class members exceeds 200,000 in Texas, want compensatory damages. Wal-Mart, which has more than 300 stores in Texas, is appealing a ruling made May 1, 2002 by state District Judge Ben Hardin, who ruled in favor of the former Wal-Mart employees. Bill Wertz, Wal-Mart spokesman, said that courts in Ohio, Louisiana and Oregon have ruled against plaintiffs? attorneys seeking class-action certification for workers who have sued Wal-Mart for wage abuses. According to Wertz, Wal-Mart?s policy is to pay its employees for their work and not ask them to work ?off the clock.? He said that if it is a problem, it is not a pattern ? it?s an exception that needs to be litigated on a case-by-case basis. Employees are encouraged to report violations, Wertz added. During a two-day court hearing, attorneys for the former Wal-Mart workers presented an analysis of Wal-Mart time records at 14 stores that showed employees missed 41,919 hours in rest and meal breaks during an eight-week period. According to Russell T. Lloyd of Houston, one of the plaintiffs? attorneys, Wal-Mart employees all around the country are limited in the number of hours they can work but not the work they have to do. The lawsuit contended that Wal-Mart managers cheat the workers to cut store expenses to enable themselves to receive higher compensation and bonuses. The employees say that if they protest not being paid for unrecorded time, Wal-Mart managers feign ignorance, and then blame the employees for violating written company policy, which sometimes results in their firing. In court findings, the plaintiffs? lawyer stated that damages for each member of the class will be less than $75,000. Besides Wal-Mart Stores, also named as defendants are Sam?s Club and Sam?s East.
NLRB Charges Wal-Mart With Denying Representation ? Nevada. The National Labor Relations Board has filed new unfair labor practice charges against Sam?s Club store at 7175 West Spring Mountain Road in Las Vegas. The complaint accuses Wal-Mart of illegally coercing, intimidating and retaliating against employees who sought representation by the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 711. The NLRB contends that Wal-Mart interfered with employees? rights to hold an election at the Sam?s Club store. The complaint alleges that Sam?s Club managers threatened workers showing union support with termination, improperly fired two union supporters, illegally refused to hire a union supporter, told employees not to talk about the union during breaks and manipulated the bargaining unit so it would favor Wal-Mart. NLRB resident officer Mike Chavez said that this latest NLRB complaint filed April 2, 2002 is the 10th complaint against the Spring Mountain store and two other Sam?s Clubs in Las Vegas in the past year. These charges are similar to those leveled in the previous nine complaints, which caused the NLRB to cancel a November union election at the Spring Mountain store. A hearing for this 10th complaint is set for June 25, 2002. The NLRB also filed an unfair labor practices complaint in September, 2001 against three Las Vegas Wal-Mart stores. Wal-Mart is now in the midst of a trial in Las Vegas on those charges. In addition to the charges in Las Vegas, the NLRB has issued complaints against Wal-Mart for violations of federal labor law that include charges of intimidation, threats, retaliation, coercion and surveillance in: Jacksonville, TX; Tyler, TX; College Station, TX; Lubbock, TX; New Castle, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Lake Elsinore, CA; Beckley, WV; Buckhannon, WV; Orlando,FL; Ocala, FL; Kingman, AZ; Mountain Home, ID; Pueblo, CO; Tahlequah, OK; Indianapolis, IN Florence, KY; Wasilla, AK and Dubuque, IA.
Wal-Mart Paying $40K In Racial Bias Suit ? Kentucky. The state human rights commission ordered Wal-Mart to pay $40,000 to two people who claimed that Wal-Mart fired them because they were an interracial couple. The commission, which made a similar decision in 1991 that was reversed on appeal, entered the order June 7, 2002 in the case of Lottie Burden and Johnnie Hines, who worked in the Russellville, Kentucky Wal-Mart. Burden, who is white, and Hines, who is black, were fired in 1989 for violating Wal-Mart?s fraternization and nepotism policies. Wal-Mart first denied Burden?s request that she and Hines be allowed to date. After an investigation, the commission said it was discovered that other ? all-white ? couples had violated Wal-Mart?s nepotism policy but had not been terminated, according to the ruling. During testimony in the case, a Wal-Mart manager, whose name was not released, said that he handled the couple?s request to date differently from other dating requests because he felt pressure from other employees about the ?black/white thing.? Burden and Hines were each awarded $20,000 for embarrassment and humiliation. Wal-Mart was also ordered to provide diversity training for all employees at the Russellville store. Wal-Mart spokesman Bill Wertz had no comment.
Wal-Mart Settles Suicide Suit ? Man Bought Ammo At Store ? North Carolina. Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $130,000 to the estate of a man who shot and killed himself after buying ammunition at a Wilmington, NC Wal-Mart. A lawsuit filed in New Hanover County District Court earlier this year accused Wal-Mart of negligence for selling bullets to a male, age 22, and for failing to supervise its employees. On July 31, 2001, after an apparent argument with his estranged wife, the decedent threatened to go to Wal-Mart to buy ammunition to commit suicide. Told of the threat, police warned two Wal-Marts to be on the lookout, but the message didn?t get to the employee who sold the decedent the ammunition, according to David Collins, attorney for the plaintiff. The decedent left the store and barricaded himself in a car, where he shot and killed himself. Wal-Mart, which denied it was responsible, settled out of court. Most of the $130,000 settlement will ultimately go to the decedent?s 3-year-old son according to Collins. Estate of Matthew John VanGraafeiland vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., District Court, New Hanover (NC) County, Case No.____. David Collins, attorney for plaintiff.
Wal-Mart?s Bid to Acquire Amigo Chain Comes Under Justice Department Scrutiny ? Puerto Rico. Wal-Mart?s proposed purchase of the 35-store Amigo chain is under investigation by the Puerto Rico Justice Department. The department itself and the FTC, which must determine whether the $225 million deal will create a monopoly, are not permitted to comment on any individual transaction. Indeed, the FTC will not confirm that a particular company has filed a petition for a merger or acquisition until the commissioners vote. The investigation to evaluate whether the transaction would be anticompetitive also is not disclosed, according to a FTC spokesman. Both the market and the players will be studied by the commissioners. In the case of the Wal-Mart deal, FTC approval would give Wal-Mart a foothold in the local supermarket industry. The acquisition, however, would not make Wal-Mart the biggest retailer in Puerto Rico. The island?s largest chain, Pueblo International, Inc. is bracing for tough competition. Pueblo International, which owns 42 supermarkets, is revamping its stores and focusing on service. According to Pueblo International ?s senior vice president, Pueblo could not engage in a price war with Wal-Mart and win. Wal-Mart has 17 stores in Puerto Rico: nine Wal-Mart stores , one Supercenter in Cayey and seven Sam?s Club stores. Wal-Mart plans to operate the Amigo locations as neighborhood markets anchored by the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Cayey. Pending the FTC decision, Amigo and Wal-Mart continue to operate independently.
Anticompetitive Allegations Investigated ? Mexico. Mexico?s antitrust regulator is looking into allegations of anticompetitive behavior by the Mexican unit of Wal-Mart. The preliminary investigation follows complaints by rivals that Wal-Mart de Mexico allegedly strong-arms suppliers into giving Wal-Mart deep discounts. The watchdog said it would look at the case in the next few months to decide if there are grounds for a full investigation. A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said that Wal-Mart had not been formally notified of any investigation by the agency and could not comment. Wal-Mart de Mexico accounts for about half of Mexico?s supermarket sales.
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Visa/MasterCard Appeal ? Class Action Status for Retailers Stands ? Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court on June 10, 2002 let stand a ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in 2000 that gave retailers class-action status in a 1996 lawsuit accusing Visa and MasterCard of using their power in the credit card industry to force merchants to accept their allegedly costly debit cards. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal without any comment or dissent, clearing the way for the case to go back to the trial judge for more proceedings. In contesting class status, Visa and MasterCard said that the retailer class was too large to be manageable, and that the retailers used flawed economic theories in presenting their case. The retailers replied that without class certification, millions of merchants would be deprived of compensation for damages. The card associations also said that, with the retailers? claim for damages of about $100 billion, the large class could make damages so high that they would be coerced into settling, regardless of the merits of the claims. However, the retailers derided the $100 billion figure for its ?apparent shock value.? The retailers told the high court that the case involved preliminary damages of about $8 billion. The retailers said that Visa and MasterCard included in their calculation the $63 billion that the retailers would save over the next decade if the trial judge grants a requested injunction. The lawsuit, led by Wal-Mart, was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of some 4 million retailers including Sears, Roebuck & Company and Safeway, Inc. In the lawsuit, Wal-Mart and the other retailers objected to having to accept Visa and MasterCard debit cards, saying that the cards carry higher transaction fees than other ATM cards that require customers to enter a personal identification number. The retailers claim that the card associations? ?honor all cards? policy, which requires that if businesses accept any Visa or MasterCard credit cards, they must accept all cards, including debit cards, illegally links credit and debit cards. Visa and MasterCard are owned by major banks and together control more than 75 percent of U.S. credit card sales. As of June 25, 2002, a Brooklyn, New York District Court judge will hear a request from the credit card companies for a summary judgment on December 13, 2002, and the trial has been scheduled to start next April 28, 2003 according to a MasterCard spokeswoman.
Did Wal-Mart Profit From Employees? Deaths? Family members of deceased Wal-Mart employees are learning that Wal-Mart used a financial practice of taking out life insurance policies on thousands of their rank-and-file workers. According to a lawsuit filed recently in Houston, Wal-Mart took out about 350,000 life insurance policies on the lives of its employees payable to the company. The insurance policies, known as corporate-owned life insurance (COLI), have been the focus of considerable attention in recent weeks, following reports in The Wall Street Journal and other media. That has led to talks by two members of congress about the need to reform the business. This financial practice, used until recently by Wal-Mart, is used increasingly by many other employers. The policies ? entirely separate from the life insurance many employers provide to workers as part of their benefits ? list the company as the beneficiary, often without the knowledge of the workers or their families. Companies use the policies to earn tax-free investment income. Companies have been taking out life insurance policies on top executives for years, however, broader COLI policies were not marketed until the 1980's when the insurance industry successfully lobbied many states to allow employers to claim an ?insurable interest? in the lives of rank-and-file workers. Many employers seized on the practice early on because they could borrow against the policies, and the interest paid was tax deductible. Congress closed that loophole in 1996, but COLI remains a popular corporate investment strategy. The chief appeal is that, over time, interest accrues on the money invested in the policies. When a worker dies, the employer collects on the policy without paying taxes on the gain. The American Council of Life Insurers says that such policies are embraced by companies because they offer a structured, affordable means of assuring they have the money to meet future costs, including but not limited to retiree health care coverage. COLI is not an employee benefit; it is a funding mechanism for meeting future liabilities that the company has, usually some type of retiree benefit. While some companies do use the policies to fund retiree benefits, others appear to have seized on that to explain their usage of COLI as an investment vehicle unrelated to benefits. Wal-Mart, which said that it canceled its COLI policies in early 2000 because it was losing money on the arrangement, has said that COLI was intended to reduce its income taxes to help pay rising employee health care costs. Wal-Mart workers were notified and given the chance to opt out. A number of states already require either notification or consent in some form, although enforcement of such provisions is sometimes limited. As of June, 2002,U.S. Representative Gene Green, D-Houston, has introduced legislation that would require employers to inform workers when such policies have been taken out in their names.
Wal-Mart Sold Gun To Killer; Not Liable For Courtroom Shooting ? Texas. On April 25, 2002, a Texas jury decided after only half an hour of deliberations that Wal-Mart wasn?t responsible for the deaths of two lawyers and the wounding of several others in a Tarrant County courtroom, even though the gunman purchased the gun he used at a Wal-Mart store. The shooting happened in Ft. Worth, Texas on July 1, 1992. The gunman, allegedly angry at the court system as a result of his divorce and custody dispute - stormed into a court of appeals proceedings dressed in business attire. He shot and killed two lawyers and wounded two judges and another lawyer. The gunman was tried, convicted and sentenced to death; he was executed in September 1994. Two months before the crime, on May 2, 1992, the gunman had purchased a 9mm Glock semi-automatic handgun at an Arlington, Texas Hypermart, owned by Wal-Mart. Dallas attorney Bill Cobb, who with Ramona Martinez represented Wal-Mart, said that the plaintiffs? initial argument centered on federal regulations for gun sales. The plaintiffs argued that under the regulations, the gunman wasn?t eligible to purchase a firearm because there was an indictment pending against him for aggravated sexual child abuse. Cobb said that this wasn?t aggressively pursued because, at the time of the sale, stores were not required to perform background checks on gun purchasers. Buyers were only required to fill out a form asking certain questions. Cobb said that ?the theory faded away? because the gunman didn?t reveal that he had been indicted even though the forms he filled out requested that information, and therefore, there was ?no practical way for Wal-Mart to know he had an indictment? pending against him. At trial, the plaintiffs argued that ?if a buyer presented himself at a counter to buy a gun and appeared mentally imbalanced, there is a common law duty of reasonable care to not sell him a weapon.? The plaintiffs presented evidence intending to show that the gunman was mentally imbalanced and ?that manifested itself at the time he purchased the gun.? The plaintiffs did this by demonstrating the gunman was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder two years before the shooting. The plaintiffs also argued that Wal-Mart, which sells a lot of firearms, had a duty to train its employees on how to conduct mental health triage, by asking a prospective gun buyer questions designed to ?evoke? signs of mental problems, in addition to inquiring about the intended uses of the gun. Wal-Mart countered by arguing that its policies were ?prudent?, that its sales staff complied with federal regulations on gun sales and that the requirements the plaintiff sought to impose on sporting goods stores for mental health screening were too extensive. Wal-Mart used some problems with the plaintiffs? argument to its advantage. Wal-Mart?s attorneys stated that the principal problem with the plaintiffs? case was that they had no witness who had seen or talked to the gunman in a mentally unstable state from January 1990, when he was diagnosed, until after the murders. Wal-Mart also argued that the gun sale wasn?t a but-for cause of the shooting- that it would have occurred regardless of where the gunman bought the gun. The plaintiffs agreed that this was one of their biggest stumbling blocks. The plaintiffs? tough part from beginning to end was the fact that the gun was purchased 60 days prior to the shooting, and that the jurors felt like if the gunman had bought it somewhere else in the intervening time, it still would have happened. Another issue working against the plaintiffs was the location of the incident. ?In Ft. Worth, Texas, it would be tough to have a different outcome with a jury, because attitudes about purchasing and availability of guns make it tough, and I don?t think the average juror in this area is going to believe Wal-Mart could have prevented the shooting,? according to Jenks Garrett, plaintiffs? attorney. One of the main reasons that Wal-Mart prevailed so quickly was the credibility of its witnesses. The plaintiffs had used their principal witness, Peter Scharf, an expert in training police officers, to explain the kinds of questions Wal-Mart employees could have and should have asked prospective gun purchasers to see if they evoked certain symptoms. However, the Wal-Mart employee who sold the gun, testified that the gunman acted normal, and that she had seen him shopping in the store before and never noticed anything out of the ordinary. Wal-Mart also called as a witness, the gunman?s psychologist, who testified that he wasn?t able to diagnose the gunman with any mental condition until after eight or nine 50 minute therapy sessions. Wal-Mart was then able to suggest to the jury that if a trained doctor could not detect the gunman?s condition after weeks of therapy, how could a Wal-Mart store clerk be expected to do better? Wal-Mart successfully argued that it did everything the law required to keep handguns away from dangerous people. Marshall v. Wal-Mart Super Centers, Inc., 236th District Court, Tarrant (TX) County, Case No. 236-154399-94. Art Brender and Jason C.N. Smith of Law Office of Art Brender, Fort Worth, TX, for the Marshall family, and Jenks Garrett, Arlington TX, for Judge Clyde Ashworth. Bill Cobb and Ramona Martinez of Cowles & Thompson, Dallas, TX, for Wal-Mart.
Court Overturns $11 Million Judgment Against Wal-Mart ? Arkansas. A federal appeals court on June 5, 2002 reversed a decision that said Wal-Mart and its insurance company had to cover part of an $11 million settlement in a product liability lawsuit involving halogen lamps. Cheyenne, distributor of halogen lamps, held two insurance policies for product liability - a $1 million policy from St. Paul and a $10 million policy from RLI. Wal-Mart carried policies from both companies and also had its own insurer, National Union, with a $10 million limit. In their contract, Cheyenne agreed to indemnify Wal-Mart from any liability resulting from the sale of halogen lamps. Wal-Mart also required Cheyenne to show proof of at least $2 million in liability insurance. After a California girl suffered burns in an accident, Cheyenne agreed to an $11 million settlement with her family. St. Paul paid $1 million; RLI covered the remaining $10 million but retained the right to seek recovery from Wal-Mart and National Union. An Arkansas federal judge ruled that National Union should be tapped second instead of RLI. Wal-Mart said that Cheyenne and its two insurers should be solely responsible for the settlement. If the case was decided any other way, the court said, it could begin a circle of litigation that would end with RLI paying the settlement anyway: If Wal-Mart paid the money, it could sue Cheyenne to enforce the indemnity provisions of its contract. Wal-Mart would win and Cheyenne would look to RLI to cover the loss because its RLI policy covers contractual indemnity liability. If National Union paid, it would sue Cheyenne asserting Wal-Mart?s indemnity right under the Cheyenne-Wal-Mart-contract. National Union would win, and Cheyenne would ask RLI to cover the loss.
County Faces $5 Million Wal-Mart Lawsuit ? Florida. Wal-Mart is seeking more than $5 million in damages from Manatee County, claiming its customer service was hindered when the county took over part of Wal-Mart?s land last year for road improvements. The area suffers from backed up traffic, poor drainage and other problems due to rapid growth in East Manatee County. Wal-Mart?s attorney, Jim Helinger, said that Wal-Mart would prefer to see the county alter its road work plans that Wal-Mart said will wipe out its garden center. Manatee County officials deny Wal-Mart?s business suffered enough to justify a $5million claim, although officials from the county and Wal-Mart plan to negotiate alternatives during the next several months. Helinger said that Wal-Mart has an alternative design for the county that spares its garden center, but gives up some parking. Manatee offered Wal-Mart $75,000 to settle its business damage claims after it paid Wal-Mart about that much when it acquired 7,094 square feet of Wal-Mart?s land through eminent domain proceedings. Walgreen and Hallmark, also in the shopping complex, filed business damage claims against the county. Florida statutes grant government power to condemn and take control of private land for public use if negotiations held in ?good faith? with the property owner fail.
Wal-Mart Seeks Approval To Buy A Bank ? California. Wal-Mart is seeking regulatory approval to buy Franklin Bank of California in Orange, California saying it hopes a banking license will lower its processing costs for certain improvements. By acquiring a bank, Wal-Mart could offer a range of financial services: savings accounts and certificates of deposit as well as home equity loans or auto financing. But Wal-Mart said it had more modest plans for the acquisition, which is largely motivated by its frustration with the high cost of processing its customers? debit card purchases. Wal-Mart has leased space in many stores to banks as a customer convenience and has a program that allows Chase Manhattan, a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase, to issue a credit card with the Wal-Mart name on it. The Franklin bank as something else that is valuable to Wal-Mart: an industrial bank charter. That charter is one of the few ways a company not primarily involved in banking or financial services is allowed under federal law to own a bank. If Wal-Mart owns a bank, it can have access to the system that arranges for debit card transactions to be deducted from a customer?s checking account. Only banks have such access. This is Wal-Mart?s third attempt to get into the banking business in as many years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 2002
Wal-Mart Stats As Of February 28, 2002. Wal-Mart had 1640 Wal-Mart stores, 1077 Supercenters, 501 Sam?s Clubs and 31 Neighborhood Markets in the United States. Internationally, Wal-Mart operated 11 units in Argentina, 22 in Brazil, 196 in Canada, 19 in China, 95 in Germany, 9 in Korea, 555 in Mexico, 17 in Puerto Rico and 251 in the United Kingdom. Wal-Mart employs more than 1 million associates in the United States.
Fortune 500 Has A New No. 1: Wal-Mart Stores ? New York. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is now the largest company in the nation and the world, capturing the top spot on the annual Fortune 500 list. Wal-Mart, No. 2 on the list a year ago, traded places with Exxon Mobil Corp. in the rankings compiled on the basis of companies? annual revenue figures. Wal-Mart became the first service company to lead the 500 which until 1995 was restricted to manufacturing concerns. Since its founding 40 years ago, Wal-Mart has seen its annual sales surge, going from $1 billion in sales for all of 1979 to sometimes making that much in a single day last year. Wal-Mart had $219.81 billion in revenues and had the most employees with more than 1.2 million worldwide.
Wal-Mart To Pay In Bias Settlement ? Virginia. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced that Wal-Mart has agreed to pay $140,000 and to provide its management with training on anti-discriminatory hiring practices in the store?s settlement of a retaliation lawsuit. The EEOC had alleged that Wal-Mart removed Kimberly Zink?s hiring authority from its Midlothian store in suburban Richmond and essentially demoted her because she complained about hiring instructions that she believed were racially discriminatory. Wal-Mart encouraged Ms. Zink to hire a work force that reflects its surrounding community and pointed to the disparity between the predominantly black cashiers at the store and the predominantly white clientele, according to the suit. Wal-Mart agreed to pay Ms. Zink $105,000 and donate a total of $35,000 to three community organizations: The Virginia office of the NAACP, the Urban League of Greater Richmond and the Virginia Regional Minority Supplier Development Council. The groups are to use the money to support their programs supporting equal opportunity and diversity in the workplace, the EEOC said.
Wal-Mart Wins Injunction To Keep Union Organizers Out of Stores ? Arkansas. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has won a court injunction to keep union organizers out of its 3,200 stores, and Wal-Mart officials hope the union will abide by the order. A permanent injunction was issued March 15 by Chancery Judge Jim D. Spears. The judge?s order prohibits the union from soliciting inside Wal-Mart buildings in the United States, including Supercenters, Sam?s Clubs and Neighborhood Markets. Violators can be held in contempt of court. Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Jessica Moser, said that Wal-Mart employees have asked the company repeatedly since 1999, when the union activity began, to stop members of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union from ?harassing them.? Union organizers can still legally solicit in store parking lots, as other groups can, Moser said.
Supreme Court Orders New Trial For Woman In Rape/Abduction Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart ? West Virginia. A woman who was abducted in 1994 outside a Wal-Mart store in Beckley, West Virginia will get a new trial in her lawsuit claiming that Wal-Mart did not adequately protect her the state Supreme Court ruled December 7, 2001. The court ordered the new trial for the woman because one of the potential members of a Raleigh County jury that ruled in favor of Wal-Mart in 1998 had ties to Wal-Mart. The woman sued Wal-Mart for $10 million, saying the store did not prevent her abduction from the Beckley Crossing parking lot on February 23, 1994. A circuit judge originally dismissed the case, but the West Virginia Supreme Court ruled a jury should decide the issue. That jury ruled in favor of Wal-Mart. BC Associates, which leased the building to Wal-Mart, settled before the trial for an undisclosed amount. The court said that Wal-Mart should not have been allowed to pin the incident on BC Associates in its closing arguments. The court ruled that the woman should have access to data showing how many sexual assaults were reported at Wal-Mart stores within a geographic area. The court also found that the woman can present extra testimony from an expert witness and a letter from a Wal-Mart executive stating that many store crimes happen in the parking lots.
Wal-Mart Fights Liability In Carjacking ? Louisiana. A dispute over how liable the Leesville, Louisiana Wal-Mart is for a carjacking in its parking lot is probably headed for an appeals court. In February, 2002, a Vernon Parish jury found Wal-Mart to be about 15 percent at fault, according to Leesville attorney Elvin Fontenot. The jury concluded that the two defendants who committed the crime should bear the rest of the burden for the $100,000 judgment. However, attorney Elvin Fontenot is seeking to make Wal-Mart pay the entire judgment. Wal-Mart doesn?t want to pay any of it. According to Fontenot, courts have ruled parties held partially responsible can be made to pay the entire cost of judgment when the other parties are unable to pay. The other defendants in the lawsuit ? the two people who committed the crime ? are unlikely to pay anything. One defendant is an adult now serving a lengthy prison sentence, while the other one is a juvenile. Wal-Mart is expected to appeal the verdict, maintaining that it should not be held partially liable much less wholly liable for the actions of carjackers.
Mother Files Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart Alleging Daughter Was Fondled By Store Employee ? South Carolina. A Fairfield County, Columbia, S.C. mother has filed a lawsuit against a former Wal-Mart employee and the Wal-Mart Corporation alleging the employee fondled her then-10-year-old daughter. The lawsuit, filed in November, 2001, claims Wal-Mart should have known that the employee was a convicted sex offender and listed on the state?s sex offender registry. When the woman and her daughter returned to report the September 25, 2000, alleged assault, Wal-Mart gave the mother a $25.00 gift certificate to forget the whole incident. ?What kind of message is that to send to a child that something this terrible could be forgotten with a $25 gift certificate?? said David Massey, an attorney for the girl and her mother.
Wal-Mart Wants A Tax Cut ? Florida State Supreme Court Hears Case. On March 5, 2002, after four years and more than a dozen lawsuits against state property appraisers, one of Wal-Mart?s cases finally worked its way to the Florida Supreme Court. Justices heard arguments on a seemingly small, but pivotal, portion of Wal-Mart?s case against Hernando County Property Appraiser, Alvin Mazourek. Wal-Mart?s attorneys argued that the sales taxes it pays to buy its store equipment should not be included in its value for tax purposes. Attorneys for Mazourek, who is supported by a number of other property appraisers, argued that sales tax is a cost of purchasing equipment and should be included in the assessment process. If the Supreme Court agrees with Wal-Mart, property appraisers across Florida would have to reduce the value of tangible property ? everything from shelving to computers ? of all businesses. They also would have to refund Wal-Mart, and other retailers who sued in its wake, for taxes paid on the sales tax during the past few years. No one seems to have come up with a total dollar value of the impact. If Wal-Mart wins, homeowners ultimately could see higher property tax bills. Counties, faced with lower revenues, could decide to raise tax rates across the board to make up for the loss. And that doesn?t include the cost to taxpayers for defending the lawsuits. Wal-Mart began challenging property appraisers? tangible property assessments in 1997.
Former Wal-Mart Employees File Suit for Working Overtime Without Pay ? Oklahoma. Two former Wal-Mart employees on behalf of workers in 85 Oklahoma Wal-Mart stores filed suit against the retail giant for allegedly forcing workers to work extra hours without pay. Named in the suit were Wal-Mart, Sam?s Club and its managers. The employees contend that they were required ?on multiple occasions? to work off-the-clock and overtime and were never paid for the work. In their 27-page petition, the employees claim that they were not given rest or meal breaks and were not compensated for the missed breaks. They allege that what happened to them routinely happened to hourly employees of Wal-Mart. The lawsuit accuses Wal-Mart of engaging in a systematic and ?clandestine scheme? of failing to properly pay employees ?in violation of Oklahoma law.?According to the lawsuit, employees are given work assignments that Wal-Mart knows can?t be completed within regularly scheduled hours. Wal-Mart then pressures employees to complete the work assignments ?through intimidation, threats of discharge and demotion,? the lawsuit says. Employees have to work after clocking out at the end of their shifts, before clocking in at the beginning of their shifts and during meal and rest breaks, according to the complaint. The lawsuit says a 48-page employee handbook contains ?definite and specific terms? concerning Wal-Mart?s policies with respect to compensating hourly employees, but that Wal-Mart fails to follow its personnel policies. The lawsuit seeks direct, punitive and special damages of an unspecified amount to compensate all Oklahoma employees who have been subjected to what it terms ?unfair business practices.? Diana Bell and Jennifer Heilman vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al, District Court, Cleveland (OK) County, Case No.____
Wal-Mart Dips $46 Million Toe Into Vast Japanese Economy ? Japan. On March 14, 2002, Wal-Mart announced that it would make its first foray into the $3.9 trillion Japanese economy by buying a minority interest in a Japanese retailer, Seiyu Ltd. Mass-market retailing in Japan has not traditionally been hospitable to foreign players, but the domestic industry has been racked by several prominent bankruptcies and hundreds of store closings in recent years as prices fell and Japanese consumers became increasingly reluctant to spend. The new investment for Wal-Mart will begin as just a toe-hold. Wal-Mart will spend about six billion yen ($46.5 million) to acquire 6.1 percent of Seiyu, Japan?s fifth-largest supermarket chain, with 1.1 trillion yen ($8.5 billion) in sales. But Wal-Mart could ultimately raise its stake to 66.7 percent with the options it will get to buy up to 260 billion yen worth of additional shares in Seiyu by 2007. Wal-Mart and Seiyu said that they would work jointly on sales and procurement strategies. Eventually, Wal-Mart is expected to open some larger Wal-Mart-style stores in Japan. Other foreign retailers, like Toys ?R? us, Costco, Carrefour of France and Boots of Britain, have tried to penetrate Japan by opening their own stores but have made little headway. Analysts said today that Wal-mart?s ease-in approach might be more appropriate in Japan, where serpentine wholesale and distribution networks are hard for outsiders to navigate. Wal-Mart already operates 1,175 stores in nine countries abroad, including China. Last year, Wal-Mart posted $32.5 billion in sales overseas, 16.3 percent of its total sales. In four countries - Britain, Canada, Germany and South Korea - Wal-Mart bought local chains rather than build from scratch.
Trial Date Set For Lawsuit Against Helen Walton ? Arkansas. Benton County judge, Tom Keith, has set a May 13, 2002 trial date for the lawsuit by truck driver Jerry Otis against Wal-Mart heiress Helen Walton. The lawsuit stems from a February 19, 1999 accident in which Helen Walton ran a red light and hit the dump truck driven by Jerry Otis, according to court documents. The suit originally sought punitive and compensatory damages, but Judge Keith granted a motion for partial summary judgment, which prohibited punitive damages. Judge Keith also granted a motion for sanctions against Dan Ivy, Otis? attorney, for violating a professional conduct rule by not investigating to determine if certain claims in Otis? lawsuit were true. Judge Keith ordered Attorney Ivy to pay $12,085 to Helen Walton?s attorney, David Matthews. Attorney Ivy told Judge Keith that he would not pay the fine; he would report to jail.
Arkansas Supreme Court Reverses $50 Million Judgment Against Wal-Mart ? Arkansas. On February 14, 2002, The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed a $50 million decision against Wal-Mart tossing out a jury?s finding that Wal-Mart stole trade secrets from P.O. Market Inc., a Texas company, and its chief executive, Joe O?Banion. P.O. Market and O?Banion had claimed that Wal-Mart acted wrongfully after the two companies tried but failed to develop a credit system for Sam?s Club in the 1990s. In March 2000, a jury awarded O?Banion and his associates $31.7 million ? plus seven years? interest that raised the judgment to $50 million. The Supreme Court said the jury was wrong; ?the evidence supporting the jury?s verdict on this point was insufficient.? Sam?s Club eventually developed a credit system called Sam?s Direct ? as a collaboration between Wal-Mart and General Electric Capital Corporation. O?Banion argued in court that the set-up was too similar to the one he proposed to Wal-Mart.
NLRB Settles Suit Against Wal-Mart ? Workers Get Back Pay ? No Admission Of Guilt From Wal-Mart ? Texas. A National Labor Relations Board administrative hearing was held December 17, 2001 in Tyler, Texas in a case representing four deposed employees of the Jacksonville, Texas Wal-Mart store. Although an agreement gave the employees their back pay, Wal-Mart refused to admit any wrongdoing opting instead for a ?non-admissions clause.? A stipulation in the settlement, which Wal-Mart Spokesperson Jessica Moser said is in ?no way? an admission of wrongdoing, requires Wal-Mart to post a notice to employees. The posting, according to court records, ?will set forth that Wal-Mart will not engage in certain activities that are alleged in the complaint as unfair labor practices.? Included in the ?unfair labor practices? were: promising employees benefits, while also threatening employees with frozen wages, to influence their votes in an election to form a union; creating an impression that their union activities were under surveillance; threatening employees with discharge; later discharging one employee; also discharging two other employees due to union involvement. Wal-Mart insists that all four deposed employees in the case waive their rights to reinstatement according to the settlement. All four employees chose to accept the settlement amounts offered.
Pharmacists Must Warn Customers About Allergies ? Ruling By Illinois Supreme Court - Lawsuit Against Wal-Mart To Proceed. On March 21, 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that pharmacists have a legal duty to warn customers about the possible dangers of their medicines, allowing a lawsuit to proceed against a Wal-Mart in McHenry, Illinois. In 1993, the female plaintiff?s physician prescribed the painkiller Toradol. The Wal-Mart pharmacist filled the prescription despite a computer warning that Toradol was dangerous for people with the plaintiff?s allergies. The plaintiff is allergic to aspirin, ibuprofen and acetaminophen ? information that was included in Wal-Mart?s computer system. The plaintiff took Toradol and went into shock. The plaintiff says that the incident worsened her multiple sclerosis and left her suffering seizures and asthma attacks. Wal-Mart argued that it was the physician?s duty, not the pharmacy?s, to warn patients regarding the possible dangers of their medicines. The Illinois Supreme Court disagreed, finding that when pharmacies collect such information, customers get the impression of greater safety, so pharmacies then must follow through by using the information. Heidi Happel vs. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Kenneth Chessick, Attorney, for plaintiff.
Wal-Mart Seeking $18 Million Subsidy To Defray Cost of Building Its First Store In City ? Chicago. Wal-Mart is demanding an $18 million public subsidy for its proposed store on the Near South Side of Chicago. Wal-Mart?s first store within Chicago would anchor a retail development proposed for 6.6 acres running northeast from Roosevelt and Canal streets. Wal-Mart and a developer want the subsidy to defray costs of building a two-level store plus a parking garage on a site other retailers have rejected because of its high costs. Wal-Mart?s project has drawn opposition from community groups who have contended that it would exacerbate traffic and subtract customers from smaller retailers nearby. They, (Wal-Mart) make a gazillion dollars every year and we?re supposed to pay them for the privilege of messing up our neighborhood?? said Barbara Lynne, executive director of the Near South Planning Board, a community group. Chicago city officials agree that some level of city assistance is appropriate because the site is below grade and requires an extra-cost design to allow the store to be visible from the street. City officials said that the parcel has little infrastructure because it has never been developed. Last year, Home Depot dropped plans to build there and other development groups have taken a pass on the location. Despite the obstacles, retailers are still drawn to the site because it is rare open land in an area alive with residential growth.
Senator Criticizes Proposed Location of Super Wal-Mart ? Louisiana. State Senator Louis Lambert, Democrat, Prairieville, Louisiana, said that building a Super Wal-Mart at Airline Highway and Old Perkins Road in Ascension Parish would create horrendous traffic problems. Senator Lambert backed his contention with a state-sponsored traffic study he presented to a meeting of representatives from 10 Prairieville subdivisions who are opposed to Wal-Mart?s plans to locate at that site. On a scale of A to F, the corner of Airline and Old Perkins was graded F more than two and a half years ago, Patrick Broderick, a C-K engineer, said. An F means that it takes more than one cycle to get through a traffic light, he said. A traffic study by Wal-Mart predicts that 17,000 cars a day would visit the store. A leader in the opposition to Wal-Mart, Lisa Lusco, said Wal-Mart?s contention that it selected the site to serve the local community means that almost all of the 18,000 residents of Prairieville would have to be at the store every day. Wal-Mart has proposed to make changes on Old Perkins and Airline to facilitate traffic flow into its location, ?but those improvements cause more problems than they solve,? Lusco said.
Sales Representatives Lack Standing To Sustain Wal-Mart Suit ? New York. A group of manufacturers? representatives, formed after Wal-Mart adopted a ?no-broker? policy and started dealing directly with manufacturers, had no standing to bring a tortious interference suit against Wal-Mart where the individual representatives? participation was necessary for choice of law and due process purposes, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals ruled on March 1, 2002. Although the group claimed that Wal-Mart tortiously interfered with the representatives? contractual relationships with manufacturers, the group refused to identify its members or produce the specific contracts that Wal-Mart was allegedly interfering with. A trial court dismissed the action for lack of standing. Affirming, the 5th Circuit rejected the proposition that individual member participation was less likely to be required if the association was seeking only injunctive relief. ?We see no way to resolve such fact-specific tort claims without participation of the individual members of the association,? the court said.
Enriched By Working Class, Wal-Mart Eyes the BMW Crowd ? New York. Wal-Mart, which grew by appealing to cost-conscious consumers, is reaching out to more affluent shoppers. After leveling discount chains from Kmart to Caldor, Ames to Bradlee?s, Wal-Mart executives are setting their sights on a fresh target: more affluent shoppers who pride themselves on snagging bargains and who discovered stores like Target, Costco and Kohl?s some time ago. Many of the 178 stores Wal-Mart opened in the last year are in well-off suburbs like Plano, Texas and Alpharetta, Georgia. However, reaching for new customers holds risks for Wal-Mart. As it adds pricier products, Wal-Mart may run the risk of alienating its millions of working-class Americans. Some of Wal-Mart?s efforts to stock its shelves with upscale goods have irritated manufacturers. Wal-Mart paid $6.4 million in 1999 to settle a lawsuit from Tommy Hilfiger over counterfeit clothing sold in some of its stores, and an additional $1.4 million to settle a similar claim from the makers of Polo, Fubu and Nautica last year. In October, 2001, Fubu sued Wal-Mart again contending that a line of store-brand clothes with an ?05" printed on them violated a Fubu trademark for an identical logo. That case is pending. In its supermarkets, Wal-Mart has found it fairly simple to improve its selection, selling Godiva chocolate raspberry truffle ice cream along with the Sam?s Choice store brand. The trick for Wal-Mart will be to transfer the success it has had in broadening its grocery array to apparel, housewares and other categories inside its mammoth stores.
Wal-Mart Bid For Alcohol Permit Criticized ? Arkansas. A plan by Wal-Mart to sell alcohol at its new Mountain Home, Arkansas Supercenter is drawing fire from the mayor and at least one church. Opponents say that alcohol sales do not jibe with Wal-Mart?s family-oriented image. Mountain Home Mayor Joe Dillard said that he strongly opposes Wal-Mart?s application for a state permit to sell beer and Arkansas wine at its grocery store section. The Arkansas Alcohol Beverage Control Board voted in August, 2001 to allow grocery and convenience stores to sell wine produced in Arkansas. There are several liquor stores in Mountain Home which is the county seat of ?wet? Baxter County. While many county convenience stores sell beer, none of the major grocery stores in the county sell alcohol. A spokesman for Wal-Mart said that a demographic research shows local residents want alcohol available at the Supercenter. Arkansas Alcohol Beverage Control Administration Director Robert Moore said that he will deny the permit if the mayor opposes it. Another group of Mountain Home residents, the elders of the 550-member College and North Street Church of Christ, also oppose the alcohol permit. The church elders believe selling alcohol conflicts with Wal-Mart?s corporate image: where the family goes shopping. Church elders also say that selling beer and Arkansas wine at the Supercenter places every shopper in the position of supporting the alcohol beverage industry, whether they want t
Facebook
Twitter