retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The City Wire reports that Walmart has agreed to "pay $87,500 and furnish other relief to settle a lawsuit for retaliation filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)."

The suit - which dates back to 2007 - accused the retailer of refusing to hire a former employee's adult son and daughter for entry level positions at a New Mexico store because the employee "filed a sex discrimination charge against Wal-Mart with the EEOC. Retaliation against an employee because of her opposition to discrimination and/or participation in protected activity, such as filing a discrimination charge, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

In a prepared statement, the company said: "Walmart does not condone retaliation of any kind. We terminated Ms. (Ramona) Bradford for legitimate business reasons. We have continually maintained that we did not retaliate against her or her family and we stand by that. We’re pleased to have resolved this with the EEOC."
KC's View:
Let me be clear about something. I take gender discrimination very seriously; it is unforgivable. I also take retaliation very seriously. I don't like it when people with power abuse it, and while I am not a naturally litigious person, I think that there is a time and a place for legal remedies in such cases.

But … a thought, if I may. If I felt I'd been discriminated against by a former employer, I don't think I'd want my kids working there. Now, maybe there's no place else to work. Maybe the kids' options are limited. But somehow, it doesn't seem all that out of bounds for a company not to want to hire blood relatives of someone who has filed a lawsuit against it.

Maybe I'm wrong on this. But I'm just trying to apply some logic and objectivity to the situation, which does more than cost Walmart 87 grand. It creates precedent.