Jury finds Wal-Mart was not negligent in hiring sex offender who molested girl
scooter34
scooter34
"By Bo Rosser
Court TV
COLUMBIA, S.C. - A jury found in favor of the retail giant Wal-Mart
Tuesday in a negligence suit filed by the mother of a 10-year-old girl
who was molested by an employee in one of the company's Super Center
stores.
"What [Bobby] Randall did was indecent and we wish that it had never
happened," Wal-Mart's attorney Steve Morrison said. "In the end,
Wal-Mart did not do anything negligent." (VIDEO)
The plaintiff in the case, Maria Hollins, chose not to comment after
the verdict, but her attorney David Massey said he was shocked by the
outcome.
"I was convinced that we had proven negligence and recklessness in the
hiring and retention of Randall," Massey said. "I do not see any set of
facts that the jury could have found for Wal-Mart. The jury, in
essence, let the little girl down."
Story continues
advertisement
The plaintiff claims the store was grossly negligent in its hiring
practices involving convicted sex offender Bobby Randall, who was
caught on store surveillance tape touching her daughter in the
electronics aisle on Sept. 25, 2000. Attorneys for Hollins faulted
Wal-Mart for not performing a criminal background check on Randall. If
they had, according to Massey, the store managers would have learned he
was a convicted sex offender.
In the 90-second encounter, Randall touched the girl twice then
followed her to the adjacent aisle where the victim's sister found her
and led her out of the camera's view. Randall, although not a convicted
felon at the time of his hiring in 1997, had been convicted for
misdemeanor indecent exposure three times, according to court
documents. He was later convicted of performing a lewd act on a minor
for the Wal-Mart incident and was sentenced to 10 years in prison,
where he died in 2002 at the age of 46.
During the five-day trial, the victim testified via videotaped
deposition to having nightmares and thoughts of suicide related to the
incident. Massey suggested an award of $1.7 to $5 million be given to
the victim's mother and put in a trust fund for the child.
After approximately nine hours of deliberations over two days, the jury
sided with Wal-Mart's defense team, who argued the company was under no
legal obligation to investigate Randall's criminal past and insisted
that, while the hiring process the retailer followed when employing
Randall was not perfect, it was "reasonable." Two of Randall's former
managers testified for the defense that the convicted sex offender was
a strong worker and that they were surprised upon hearing of his legal
troubles.
Despite winning the case today, the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer
adopted the practice of performing criminal background checks on
potential employees in 2004, following a judge's order that Wal-Mart
provide a list of employees so that it could be cross-referenced
against South Carolina's sex offender database. A company spokesman
said earlier in the trial that there were a number of factors that
prompted the change in policy.
The win for the $300 billion company may have done more than just save
it a $5 million payout. The retailer is facing similar suits in six
states, according to Massey, who is suing the retailer for an incident
in Orangeburg, S.C. The verdict may discourage some plaintiffs' plans
for multimillion dollar awards or settlements.
Wal-Mart employs 1.34 million people nationwide in 3,864 stores and
expects to open a new store in Columbia once rezoning approval is
granted.
The verdict and video highlights of the trial are available on Court TV
Extra"
JonesieCat
news:1146597638.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'm interested in knowing why it left a bad taste? I admit I have a bias
against Walmart, for how they treat their employees generally. I mean, I
think they're happy when they get people who will put up with it, and don't
care who they hire. For that reason, I suspect disadvantaged people get
hired, plus plenty too who's crim records prevented them being hired
elsewhere. Riles me that a chain who markets to families - low-income folks
with children - hire pedos to take care of business. That policy is
deserving of punishment imo. <shrug>
JC
scooter34
1) He wasn't a convicted felon at the time Wal-Mart hired him.
2) The girl didn't even realize he had touched her with a sexual
intent at the time, according to testimony.
3) She showed no signs of trauma until her mother had dragged her to a
lawyer and then to a therapist recommended by the lawyer.
4) Thoughts of suicide? Over having someone touch your buttocks?
Puh-lease.
In my opinion, the damage done to this girl was done to the people who
saw dollar signs, not by Bobby Randall. This is no way excuses him.
Holding Wal-Mart (which I detest, BTW) accountable is wrong, however.
scooter34
> JC
JonesieCat
Yabbut - tho not a convicted FELON, he DID have convictions: "had been
convicted for misdemeanor indecent exposure three times" - this would have
been revealed if Walmart'd checked - or cared.
The 10 yo victim's situation - first, the girl apparently DID get what
happened to her at some point, since she told her family about it. Whether
she had extensive trauma or not - I too think she could very well get on
with it after this w/out too much psychological hardship. And I agree that
money would not nec help her (tho some funds of counselling might help). And
the family, by pursuing this, may have made it harder on the girl. Or not,
don't know, don't see it as relevant really, 'cause:
These types of lawsuit can impose punitive damages that make companies clean
up their acts, clean up their hiring practices, whatever. I think it's too
bad that didn't happen. If Walmart would get a bit of comeuppence, maybe
they'd be better community citizens.
JC
JonesieCat
"Frank" <fr...@frank.spam> wrote in message
news:hplf529e3nah8roc2...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 3 May 2006 07:44:36 +1000, "JonesieCat" <Long Ago & Far Away>
> wrote:
>
>>These types of lawsuit can impose punitive damages that make companies
>>clean
>>up their acts, clean up their hiring practices, whatever. I think it's too
>>bad that didn't happen. If Walmart would get a bit of comeuppence, maybe
>>they'd be better community citizens.
>
> guess you want the US prison population to explode to about 4 million
> in the next 10 years.
Ewwww, yucky stuff stuck to my shoe. Must scrape it plonk.
scooter34
Well, again, I don't know South Carolina law. I do know that in many
states, potential employees are only required to disclose if they have
been convicted of a felony. Here in Michigan, we didn't even collect
misdemeanors on the state criminal history until 2002. The only way to
discover those would have been to contact the court of record. We have
well over 100 district courts in Michigan, and, prior to electronic
databases, only kept 7 years worth of records.
You'd be surprised that most "background checks" conducted by companies
you see on the Internet consist of a check on the state's sex offender
registry, a check of the state's public prison website, and a phone
call to the court where the person lives. That's it. We've taken many
calls from the services you see on the Internet, wanted to interface
with our state systems so customers can do online checks.
> The 10 yo victim's situation - first, the girl apparently DID get what
> happened to her at some point, since she told her family about it.
Her sister saw Randall following her and came and took her away. They
went to the store manager pretty quickly.
Whether > she had extensive trauma or not - I too think she could very
well get on
> with it after this w/out too much psychological hardship. And I agree that
> money would not nec help her (tho some funds of counselling might help). And
> the family, by pursuing this, may have made it harder on the girl. Or not,
> don't know, don't see it as relevant really, 'cause:
>
> These types of lawsuit can impose punitive damages that make companies clean
> up their acts, clean up their hiring practices, whatever. I think it's too
> bad that didn't happen. If Walmart would get a bit of comeuppence, maybe
> they'd be better community citizens.
>
> JC
I see your points, but again, I respectfully disagree. A $10 million
verdict against Wal-Mart would be a drop in the bucket to a retailer of
that size; certainly not enough to change a corporate practice. The
fact is that there are too many of these low-paying retail jobs and not
enough bodies to fill them, so employers are going to gamble. My local
Wal-Mart currently has a 55% vacancy rate in staff (my brother's MIL
has worked there for 15 years). It's cheaper not to know and risk a
lawsuit than thoroughtly screen people. And as Frank (may he be
plonked in peace) pointed out, if you start disqualifying everyone with
a misdemeanor, you're going to have a huge unemployable population.
You would be surprised at the number of people who have some run in
with the law in their past.
Finally, my issue is partly with the mentality that everything is
compensable. Sometimes bad things happen. What I would like to see is
all punitive damages going to charity automatically. That way, a
company is still on the hook for liability, and society as a whole
benefits from the punishment it received.
scooter34
JonesieCat
Hi again, Scooter24. First, no, I assure you I would not be at all surprised
at the number of people who have had run ins with the law in their pasts.
Whatever makes you think so? I would also observe, that if you think a $10M
finding against Walmart doesn't scare the bejesus out of them, you're
dreaming. That is why they defend it so vigorously of course. And it is not
just one lawsuit
they are afraid of - it's all the other 10yo girls out there, approached by
perverts in their stores, who might step forward, who they are wayyy afraid
of. I did not know that misdemeanors might not show up on crim records
checks (and that is what we are talking about; not volunteered info by
employees), so that makes a big diff as to what might be uncovered or not,
to my way of
thinking. And I wonder if that was part of the mitigating thing that the
jury considered in this case? IAC, and respectfully, I think that lumping
all corp entities together as a means of excusing behaviour ("that's just
what they are going to do") isn't helpful or convincing. I have become less
inclined to criticize the litigious environment of the US until I lived away
from it. You might be
amazed at what it safeguards for consumers in all kinds of diff ways. If
that means along the way, folks may get overcompensated for harm done, so
what? They are few, in the scheme of things. And at the end of the day,
unless we know them personally, we don't really know what they do or do not
deserve. And I personally don't care. I believe it is easy to forget why
civil recourse exists, and to believe it is easily abused. But it also
serves a very good purpose for us all - and talk to people who have been
through the lawsuit route like these people - it is never easy (as I
understand it; I've not 'been there').
~long discourse over~!! I can't sleep. Middle of the night and I woke up
full of energy?! Don't know what that's about. Always a good time to post
here! Sorry for bending your, er, ear, however.
JC
tiny dancer
"JonesieCat" <Long Ago & Far Away> wrote in message
news:4458080e$0$7605$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Personally, I think anyplace that bills itself as a 'family store', has a
responsibility to do background checks on any employee's who come into
contact with the general public. I don't care about the thiefs or whatever
crimes might be exposed workers, but I don't care to have child sexual
abusers working out in the general public without close supervision
especially.
>
>
scooter34
JonesieCat wrote:
> "scooter34" <momofpe...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:1146657651.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > JonesieCat wrote:
> >> "scooter34" <momofpe...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> news:1146601413.8...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> > JonesieCat wrote:
> >> >> "scooter34" <momofpe...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1146597638.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> I'm interested in knowing why it left a bad taste? I admit I have a
Actually, the suit was for between 1 1/2 and 5 million, IIRC. I just
used $10 million because I read an article the other day about Wal-Mart
seeking to save $5 million in banking fees by getting a license to
bank, and an FDIC regulator scornfully called that much money a
"pittance" to WM. If they have over a million employees, that makes
anything over $10 in background cost checks a losing proposition.
>
> they are afraid of - it's all the other 10yo girls out there, approached by
> perverts in their stores, who might step forward, who they are wayyy afraid
> of. I did not know that misdemeanors might not show up on crim records
> checks (and that is what we are talking about; not volunteered info by
> employees), so that makes a big diff as to what might be uncovered or not,
> to my way of thinking. And I wonder if that was part of the mitigating thing that the
> jury considered in this case? IAC, and respectfully, I think that lumping
> all corp entities together as a means of excusing behaviour ("that's just
> what they are going to do") isn't helpful or convincing. I have become less
> inclined to criticize the litigious environment of the US until I lived away
> from it. You might be amazed at what it safeguards for consumers in all kinds of diff ways. If that means along the way, folks may get overcompensated for harm done, so
> what? They are few, in the scheme of things. And at the end of the day,
> unless we know them personally, we don't really know what they do or do not
> deserve. And I personally don't care. I believe it is easy to forget why
> civil recourse exists, and to believe it is easily abused. But it also
> serves a very good purpose for us all - and talk to people who have been
> through the lawsuit route like these people - it is never easy (as I
> understand it; I've not 'been there').
>
> ~long discourse over~!! I can't sleep. Middle of the night and I woke up
> full of energy?! Don't know what that's about. Always a good time to post
> here! Sorry for bending your, er, ear, however.
>
> JC
No prob, JC. Again, I don't intend to excuse Wal-Mart. There are
things that an employer can't control, however.
Consider this - if I background check an employee, am I guaranteeing
that this person is "clean"? What employer is going to want to take on
that liability?
The fact that this is a sex offense complicates the issue, I think.
People become more emotional about that. If he had a record for purse
snatching and he stole a woman's purse, would Wal-Mart be liable for
the theft? How about if he had a record for purse snatching and he
touched a child's buttocks? Are they on or off the hook?
Questions that won't be resolved soon, however. I hope this girl is
okay.
scooter34
JonesieCat
Yes, it costs all employers for the background checks they run on employees.
Cost of doing business.
Nowhere in this conversation did we discuss an employer "guaranteeing" an
any employee as "clean" or anything else. Currently MANY employers take on
the responsibility of background checks, for one reason or another. Are you
wanting them to stop, so you can save them some money and potential
liability?
> The fact that this is a sex offense complicates the issue, I think.
> People become more emotional about that. If he had a record for purse
> snatching and he stole a woman's purse, would Wal-Mart be liable for
> the theft? How about if he had a record for purse snatching and he
> touched a child's buttocks? Are they on or off the hook?
The fact that this is a sex offense makes it much simpler, imo.
> Questions that won't be resolved soon, however. I hope this girl is
> okay.
>
> scooter34
So do I. On that we do agree.
JC