Cynthia Haddad was employed by Wal-Mart as a pharmacist for 11 years - and was then fired in 2004. She brought suit against the monster company alleging she was terminated as a result of gender discrimination, prohibited under federal law (Title VII) and many state legislative schemes as well. On June 20, 2007, her jury came back with a $2 million award in her favor. Read more about the case here at CNN.com.
Title VII serves as the legal underpinning of most employment discrimination suits in the U.S. (or as one of the underpinnings). The employer often defends its actions by citing violation of its policies as the reason for the employee’s termination, demotion, or other complained-of action; that’s what Wal-Mart did here, claiming Haddad actually was fired for failing to keep the pharmacy secure. When the employer presents such a defense, it’s then up to the employee to present evidence showing that this offered excuse is just a pretext that serves to mask the real reason - discrimination. This is called “McDonnell Douglas burden shifting”, so named after the case of McDonnell Douglas v. Green, a Supreme Court case you can read here at Findlaw (HTML format).
Technorati Tags: title vii, gender discrimination, haddad v walmart
Powered by ScribeFire.
Filed In: 
RSS Feed
Valid XHTML
Design by:
It seems as if the plaintiff’s tactic of using an expert to explain HR policies will begin to become the norm in employment cases.
It’s also sad that this dispute was originally over $7,000.
Finally, the verdict also shows how powerful “future lost earnings” can become to a terminated plaintiff.
AM a student studying this case….very interesting comments. Would you have any idea where I might find the court case records . I have looked everywhere online.
Thanks
Hi Reading on some of the cases Walmart has against them. I was a manager there and not only did I and still am going through hell from the ramafications of working for them but what I saw them do in the process.