I have a few of you in mind for this one :

Judge OKs Walgreen discrimination settlement
About 10,000 black Walgreen workers will split $20 million

updated 6:13 p.m. CT, Tues., March. 25, 2008

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. - A federal judge has signed off on Walgreen Co.’s plan to pay $24 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging racial bias at the nation’s largest drugstore chain.

Roughly 10,000 past and present black Walgreen workers will split $20 million under the consent decree given final approval Monday by U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Attorneys involved in the case will share about $4.5 million in fees separate from the settlement amount.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the lawsuit in March of last year, accusing the Deerfield-based retailer of discriminating against thousands of black workers in hiring and assignment decisions.

The decree also requires Walgreen to hire outside consultants to review and make recommendations about their employment practices, including standardized, nondiscriminatory promotion and store assignments, procedures and promotional benchmarks.

Walgreen, which still says it did nothing wrong, began putting the decree’s requirements in place last July when Murphy gave the settlement deal tentative approval, Walgreen spokeswoman Tiffani Bruce said.

“We do not tolerate discrimination in any aspect of employment,” Bruce said Tuesday, insisting “we’re the drug store industry leader when it comes to the employment and promotion of African-American managers and pharmacists.”

The EEOC and a California-based law firm will monitor Walgreen’s compliance with the decree, with Murphy keeping jurisdiction over the matter for five years, the EEOC said in a statement.

Tiffany Klosener, a plaintiff’s attorney in Kansas City, Mo., called the case’s outcome “a great result at a really great time,” with Walgreen’s rapid expansion reflected in the hundreds of stores it opened during the first half of its fiscal year.

Walgreen said it has 230,000 workers in its 6,237 stores in 49 states and Puerto Rico.

The settlement resolves the EEOC’s litigation and a private class-action lawsuit filed in June 2005 on behalf of 14 current and former black Walgreen workers. Those cases were consolidated in April of last year.

The lawsuits allege Walgreen assigns black managers, management trainees and pharmacists to low-performing stores and to stores in black communities, and denies them promotions based on race.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23800512/

Were the black employees actually assigned to stores in black communities, or were they hired after applying there? Of what use would it be to say "uh, well, we can't have black employees at this store, since it's in a black neighborhood. You need to work at a store five miles away or not work here at all." Given that non-licensed pharmacist staff work is generally hired via applications submitted at that particular store, this would mean that the stores in black neighborhoods would essentially have to deny black applicants because they're black. That's racism.

But now hiring black applicants who apply to stores (note: not assigned pharmacists here) in primarily black neighborhoods is racism according to this lawsuit. In any case, Walgreens is going to be buttfucked by money-grubbing lawyers, who, as you see, really banked on this one.

That being said, assigning black workers (specifically pharmacists) in black and/or poor neighborhoods, is inexcusable, as is the allegedly proved practice of not promoting black workers due solely to their race.

I'm pretty sure it involved assignments

You can always count on Wal-Mart for playing dirty.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/25/walmar ... index.html


Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

* Story Highlights
* Debbie Shank, 52, suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident
* Wal-Mart's health plan sued Shank and her family to recoup what it paid out
* The Shanks got money in suit; Wal-Mart says policy means couple can't get benefits
* Couple's son was killed in Iraq after they lost lawsuit to Wal-Mart

By Randi Kaye
CNN

JACKSON, Missouri (CNN) -- Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she's told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

Even though the 52-year-old mother of three attended her son's funeral -- she continues to ask how he's doing. When her family reminds her that he's dead -- she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles -- both personal and legal -- that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart's health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.

The Shanks didn't notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart's health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family's attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money. VideoWatch this couple's story »

"We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to," Graham said.

The Shanks lost their suit to Wal-Mart. Last summer, the couple appealed the ruling -- but also lost it. One week later, their son was killed in Iraq.

"They are quite within their rights. But I just wonder if they need it that bad," Jim Shank said.

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

Legal or not, CNN asked Wal-Mart why the company pursued the money.

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, who called Debbie Shank's case "unbelievably sad," replied in a statement: "Wal-Mart's plan is bound by very specific rules. ... We wish it could be more flexible in Mrs. Shank's case since her circumstances are clearly extraordinary, but this is done out of fairness to all associates who contribute to, and benefit from, the plan."

Jim Shank said he believes Wal-Mart should make an exception.

"My idea of a win-win is -- you keep the paperwork that says you won and let us keep the money so I can take care of my wife," he said.

The family's situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He's afraid he won't be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie's care.

"Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?" he asked.

The family's attorney agrees.

"The recovery that Debbie Shank made was recovery for future lost earnings, for her pain and suffering," Graham said.

"She'll never be able to work again. Never have a relationship with her husband or children again. The damage she recovered was for much more than just medical expenses."

Graham said he believes Wal-Mart should be entitled to only about $100,000. Right now, about $277,000 remains in the trust -- far short of the $470,000 Wal-Mart wants back.

Refusing to give up the fight, the Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. But just last week, the high court said it would not hear the case.

Graham said the Shanks have exhausted all their resources and there's nothing more they can do but go on with their lives.

Jim Shank said he's disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case -- not for the sake of his family -- but for those who might face similar circumstances.

For now, he said the family will figure out a way to get by and "do the best we can for Debbie."

"Luckily, she's oblivious to everything," he said. "We don't tell her
what's going on because it will just upset her."

Well, the lawsuit alleged that they were assigned, and they won.

It's hard to believe that these horse's asses at Walgreens could assign 10,000 workers. I'm assuming the majority of those claims were verified evidence of lack of promotion.

On the other side of the coin, I dunno how big Walgreens IS, but if 10,000 equals the exact number of black workers that do and have worked at Walgreens, that in and of itself is unjustified, since it is unlikely every single black employee case can be shown to have violated law. Those who have proven their case individually deserve this share of money, not just anyone who has worked at Walgreens who has the requisite skin color to participate in this suit.

I wish I knew more details about this case ...

This one is a beaut.

Maybe a lawyer can explain how a class-action suit works, but I don't think you have to prove that they fucked 10,000 people in order to win the case.

Oh, and the Wal-Mart one IS nice! File that under Wal-Mart is a homo.

Seems Wal-Mart was pressured into doing the right thing. Good for the woman and her family


http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02/wa ... index.html

Wal-Mart: Brain-damaged former employee can keep money

* Story Highlights
* Wal-Mart sued Debbie Shank to recoup $470,000 it paid for her medical care
* Shank appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court would not hear the case
* On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said it is modifying its health care plan

From Randi Kaye
CNN

(CNN) -- A former Wal-Mart employee who suffered severe brain damage in a traffic accident won't have to pay back the company for the cost of her medical care, Wal-Mart told the family Tuesday.

"Occasionally, others help us step back and look at a situation in a different way. This is one of those times," Wal-Mart Executive Vice President Pat Curran said in a letter. "We have all been moved by Ms. Shank's extraordinary situation."

Eight years ago, Debbie Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart's health and benefits plan.

After a tractor-trailer slammed into her minivan, the 52-year-old mother of three lost much of her short-term memory and was confined to a wheelchair. She now lives in a nursing home.

She also lost her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, who was killed shortly after arriving in Iraq. When Debbie Shank asks family members how her son is doing and they remind her that he's dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Wal-Mart's health care plan lets the retail giant recoup the cost of its expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit. And Wal-Mart set out to do just that after Shank and her husband, Jim, won $1 million after suing the trucking company involved in the wreck. After legal fees, the couple received $417,000.

Wal-Mart sued the Shanks to recoup $470,000 it paid for her medical care. However, a court ruled that the company could only recoup about $275,000 -- the amount that was left in a trust fund for her care.

The Shanks appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court declined in March to hear the case. CNN told the couple's story last week, prompting thousands of angry blog responses and at least two online petitions to boycott the company.

On Tuesday, Wal-Mart said in a letter to Jim Shank that it is modifying its health care plan to allow "more discretion" in individual cases.VideoWatch Wal-Mart reverse its decision »

"We wanted you to know that Wal-Mart will not seek any reimbursement for the money already spent on Ms. Shank's care, and we will work with you to ensure the remaining amounts in the trust can be used for her ongoing care," Curran said.

"We are sorry for any additional stress this uncertainty has placed on you and your family."


Wal-Mart's reversal came as shock to Shank.

"I thought it was an April Fool's joke," he told CNN.

"I (would) just like to let them know that they did the right thing. I just wish it hadn't taken so long," Shank said. "But I thank them and I hope they come through with all that they said they're going to do.