Jury Awards Walmart Pharmacist $2 Million In Sex-Discrimination Suit

A Massachusetts jury has awarded a former Walmart employee almost $2 million dollars after finding that the company underpaid her, then fired her as a result of gender discrimination, according to Reuters.

“We respect the jury’s decision but we feel that it did not reflect the facts in the case, so we are studying the decision and have not ruled out an appeal,” said Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley, in a phone interview on Wednesday. “Ms. Haddad was dismissed because of numerous violations of company policy.”

Haddad’s lawyer responded:

“The message in our case is you can’t take a professional pharmacist and fire her for reasons that aren’t enforced for male pharmacists. Their reasons were just laughable,” said Richard E. Fradette.

Walmart is also the subject of a very similar gender-discrimination lawsuit that has been given class action status—making it the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in US history. An attorney involved told the Boston Globe:

“It’s very similar and probably draws upon the same practices that we’re talking about in our case,” said Joseph Sellers , an lawyer with Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll in Washington, D.C., and co-lead counsel in the class action .

Of course, the lawyer isn’t going to say, “No, our lawsuit is totally different,” after the woman won $2 million, so that that for what it’s worth.—MEGHANN MARCO

Mass. jury awards $2 million in Wal-Mart bias suit [Reuters]
Wal-Mart told to pay $2m to fired pharmacist [Boston Globe]
(Photo: taberandrew)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. beyond says:

    Lots of people are underpaid. I’m underpaid; where’s my 2 million bucks?

    Maybe their laughable reasons for firing her wasn’t because she was a woman but because she was just a lousy person to work with and they got sick of it.

  2. royal72 says:

    step 1: get job at walmart.
    step 2: gossip about my specifics such as beliefs, history, religion, etc.
    step 3: wait for discrimination.
    step 4: collect money!

  3. mcevil says:

    Not that I’m a big walmart fan, but there may be more to the story. This site has some interesting notes: [www.overlawyered.com]

    p.s. my first post, so if the link doesn’t work right, please forgive…

  4. mopar_man says:

    Glad to hear it. I hope that huge suit has the same outcome.

  5. Beerad says:

    @royal72: Or perhaps it’s:

    Step 1: Get job at Wal-mart.
    Step 2: Be denied equal pay for the same work because you have a uterus and work in a sexist environment.
    Step 3: Lose your job and be forced to go through a lengthy court battle to have your rights vindicated.
    Step 4: Be ridiculed on the internet by people who have no idea what they’re talking about.

    Look, I wasn’t on the jury. I bet you weren’t either. But a bunch of other people were, they heard all the evidence, and they agreed with her. Who are you to second-guess them?

  6. powerjhb says:

    She was not fired for being a woman. She was fired because “she left the pharmacy unattended, allowed a technician to use her computer security code to issue prescriptions, including a fraudulent prescription for a painkiller, something that could have exposed Wal-Mart to enormous liability if someone had been injured by the illegally dispensed drugs.”

    See here: [www.overlawyered.com]

  7. royal72 says:

    @Beerad: perhaps my sarcasm did not come through as intended? i simply meant this as an opportunity to make some money the good ol’ american way, by suing. i wasn’t commenting about the specifics of this case.

  8. Beerad says:

    @royal72: In that case, I apologize — didn’t get the sarcasm. Although I always thought the good ol’ american way to make money was by exploiting those with less power than you (especially if you’re a corporation). Suing is, lamentably, about the only way to level the playing field. It’s not perfect, but it’s what we got.

  9. banned says:

    @Beerad:

    I am a Canadian, thus not allowed on the jury so I have every right to second guess. This is ridiculous, she should be in jail and paying Wal-Mart. I hate Wal-Mart but they don’t sound wrong here to me. It’s more;

    Step 1: Get job at Wal-mart.
    Step 2: Become an accessory to a crime.
    Step 3: Claim you were fired for being a woman because men don’t get fired for fraud.
    Step 4: Win $2 million.
    Step 5: Get ridiculed on the internet.
    Step 6: Lose on the appeal.

    Maybe she should be awarded money if in fact, she was underpaid, but only that amount plus legal fees and not a penny more.

  10. baddog993 says:

    So Wal-mart should be rewarded for paying her less for a manager job? She complains about drugs missing gets reprimanded for doing that, and oh by the way your fired because you complained about the drugs and the pay. Oh and wall mart is already facing another lawsuit the biggest in us history for this kind of bias.
    Your way doesnt punish wall-mart, she should get some compensation for the job she lost and the bogus reason she was fired.

  11. Beerad says:

    @rocnrule: (Sigh.) Congratulations, you’re Canadian. I’m still not sure how that qualifies you to claim that a preponderance of the people who actually got to hear both sides of the case are just obviously wrong.

    Based on what I’ve read from the news, it seems likely the woman is totally in the right. The “fraud” that you vaguely refer to I assume is the incident where she let her technician log in to her computer to issue prescriptions. The one that happened 18 months before she was fired, compared with the glowing reviews she received in her recent evaluation? The “fraud” that Wal-Mart didn’t even bother to note on her termination record? Is that the one you’re referring to?

    It must be nice to feel certain that people you don’t like should be in jail, but I leave that up to the police and/or prosecutors to decide. I guess they don’t share your views in this case.

  12. Bourque77 says:

    @rocnrule: WalMarts class action suit they mention is well over 1 and a half million former and current female workers. So clearly they have a reputation for this type of stuff. I dont think 2 million dollars is reasonable but thats a chance you take when you discriminate. At least its not 50 million dollar pants.

  13. IRSistherootofallevil says:

    Hopefully each of them gets $2 million. WalMart should go out of business.