Posts Tagged ‘Wal-Mart’

“The pumpkin weighed 8.4 ounces and was ‘squishy.'”

A Florida appeals court has reinstated a jury’s verdict of no liability in the case of a woman who while shopping at Wal-Mart was struck in the back with an 8.4 ounce (that’s ounce, not pound) ornamental pumpkin. According to the court’s footnote 1, the projectile in question was “squishy.” The trial lasted three weeks. [Schwartz v. Wal-Mart Stores: Fifth District, FindLaw]

Labor roundup

  • “Coming to Your Workplace Soon? Union Organizing Efforts Via the Company’s Email System” [Daniel Kaplan, Foley & Lardner]
  • “Pennsylvania Unions Still Exempt from Harassment [Law], Continue Harassing with Impunity” [Trey Kovacs, Workplace Choice, earlier here, here, here]
  • Music production gravitates to right to work states attract in part because union musicians less afraid of discipline for taking gigs there [Variety on union’s dispute with videogame-composer member]
  • New definition of “nationwide strike”: protesters show up at a few Wal-Marts, few workers pay attention [On Labor]
  • Presently constituted NLRB and U.S. Department of Labor are zealous union partisans, not impartial arbiters [Alex Bolt]
  • “Workers filing wage-and-hour lawsuits under Labor Act at record pace” [Crain’s Detroit Business]
  • “Despite repeated failures, Card Check still top Big Labor priority” [Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner]

December 26 roundup

  • L.A. County assessor, though in jail, will keep drawing $197K salary plus raise [LAT]
  • IRS lowers the regulatory boom on tax preparers [Institute for Justice video, auto-plays]
  • On Wal-Mart Mexico bribery, NYT has a bit of a blind eye of its own [Stoll; earlier here, here, etc.]
  • Another painful CPSIA regulation: CPSC on testing “representative samples” [Nancy Nord]
  • “Popcorn lung” couple “won a $20 million judgment. Now, they’re broke.” [ABC]
  • From Todd Zywicki: Libertarianism, Law and Economics, and the Common Law [SSRN via Bainbridge]
  • If the courts disapprove of throttling internet speeds, what do they think of throttling class action claims redemption rates? [Ted Frank]

Disabled rights roundup

  • Lawprof’s classic argument: you thought I was capable of going on a workplace rampage with a gun, and though that isn’t true, it means you perceived me as mentally disabled so when you fired me you broke the ADA [Above the Law, ABA Journal, NLJ]
  • “Fragrance-induced disabilities”: “The most frequent MCS [Multiple Chemical Sensitivity] accommodation involves implementing a fragrance-free workplace [or workzone] policy” [Katie Carder McCoy, Washington Workplace Law, earlier here, etc.]
  • Netflix seeks permission to appeal order in captioning accommodation case [NLJ, Social Media Law via Disabilities Law, earlier here, here and here]
  • EEOC presses harder on ADA coverage for obesity [PoL, earlier here, here, here, etc.]
  • Disability groups seek class action: “ADA Suit Claims Wal-Mart Checkout Terminals Are Too High for Wheelchair Users” [ABA Journal, Recorder]
  • Crunch postponed until after election: “Despite delays, chair lifts coming to public pools” [NPR Morning Edition, earlier here, here, here, etc.] Punished for advocacy: disabled groups organize boycotts of “hotels whose leaders, they say, have participated in efforts to delay regulations.” [USA Today]
  • Disabled student sues St. Louis U. med school over failure to provide more time on tests [St. L. P-D]

Wal-Mart sued over teen’s bogus P.A. announcement

At a Wal-Mart store in Turnersville, N.J. in 2010, a 16-year-old visitor got hold of the store’s public address system momentarily and announced to shoppers, “Attention Walmart customers: All black people must leave the store.” “A manager quickly made his own announcement, apologizing for the message. … The teenager was charged with harassment and bias intimidation, but now Donnell Battie, who is black, is suing Walmart claiming the store was negligent and reckless and showed deliberate indifference by not keeping the P.A. system safe from abuse.” [Gloucester County Times]

More re: FCPA, Wal-Mart and Mexico

  • Notwithstanding the tone of much coverage, companies are not legally required to disclose past FCPA violations to the government when they emerge: “It’s my understanding from in-house counsel that those who [voluntarily] disclose are in the distinct minority,” says one observer. Also, Prof. Koehler notes that even if Wal-Mart successfully defends the Mexican outlays as lawful “facilitating payments,” the company could still be accused of violating FCPA’s “books and records” and internal control provisions as well as Sarbanes-Oxley. [Sue Reisinger, Corporate Counsel]
  • Coyote recalls the eyes-averted maneuvers with which his former employer put itself in a posture of formal FCPA compliance when operating in corrupt countries;
  • Must-read Scott Greenfield post: “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is the corporate version of blue laws, a reflection of American idealism born of our Puritanical origins, our Pollyanna-ish denial of how the sausage of business is made, our jingoistic belief that we are so integral to the economic functioning of the world that we can dictate a cultural and moral code for everyone, and they can either comply with our great American will or suck eggs. It’s a fantasy of self-righteousness, and even Wal-Mart got caught in the reality that the business of business is business, and not puffy-chested Americans can bully Mexicans into succumbing to our moralistic ways.” Also suggests what Wal-Mart might say in response (at least if Wal-Mart were a character in an Ayn Rand novel) and notes “efforts to take this mutt of a law and attempt to reform it, at least to the extent that it not make American multinational corporations chose between being criminals or uncompetitive.”
  • Speaking of which, some reforms sought by business: “Bringing Transparency to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act” [Michael Mukasey and James Dunlop, Federalist Society “Engage”]
  • Jeffrey Miron: prosecute Wal-Mart but repeal FCPA [CNN/Cato]
  • While agreeing that the FCPA we have at present is pretty bad, Prof. Bainbridge thinks a case can be made for such a law in principle;
  • Something to get Capitol Hill Democrats on board for reform? FCPA might menace Hollywood on China dealings [WSJ “Corruption Currents”]

Earlier here, here, here, and (at Cato) here.

Punitive moralism and Wal-Mart’s Mexico mess

I’ve got a new opinion piece up at the Daily Caller on some relevant angles of the unfolding Wal-Mart FCPA story, including the feds’ growing crackdown on low-level “facilitating payments” that had previously been considered lawful, the potentially confiscatory effects of something called the Alternative Fines Act, and the question of why FCPA fines and settlements should be going to the U.S. Treasury, “which was surely not the victim of the Mexican bribe-paying, if victims there were.” Earlier here, here and (at Cato) here; and link thanks to Scott Greenfield (a must-read), Point of Law, Chris Fountain, Steve Bainbridge, and Coyote.

Plus: Scoop! Must credit Washington Post! Wal-Mart (like much of the rest of American business) has backed FCPA reform! In above-the-fold coverage with no fewer than three reporters’ bylines — though it does little more than recycle a meme that bounced around left-wing websites all day Tuesday — the Washington Post darkly warns that the giant retailer has been a member of broad business coalitions pressing various FCPA reforms “that, some advocacy groups argue, would eviscerate the Watergate-era anti-corruption statute.”  “There is no evidence,” the paper is constrained to concede to the disappointment of Some Advocacy Groups, “that suggests Wal-Mart participated in the Chamber’s efforts because of its problems in Mexico.”

The Post notes that the campaign is led by what it bizarrely describes as the U.S. Chamber’s “little-known” Institute for Legal Reform. Yet the Post’s own index indicates that the “little-known” Institute has gotten seven mentions in the paper within the past 12 months, mostly for its advocacy on FCPA reform. Indeed, the Post itself has covered the FCPA debate in some depth over the past year, and its editorialists have ardently defended the law (perhaps “Watergate-era” should serve as some kind of tipoff phrasing.)

It would be one thing if Wal-Mart’s Washington reps had shown some sort of special dislike of FCPA not shared by other American firms that do business in developing countries. But the real story here is how broad and pervasive the discontent with the law is among American businesses with international operations. They consider it unrealistic, incapable of reliable compliance, punitive and constantly changing in its interpretations. Wouldn’t the Post do better to begin listening to them, rather than demonize their efforts to petition Washington for redress?

WalMex and the mordida, cont’d

I’ll be writing at more length about the New York Times’s story on Wal-Mart de Mexico’s payments to local officials, and the apparent sense of some in Bentonville that the issue would rest quietly if only they didn’t investigate it too hard. In the mean time, I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty pointing to some reactions to the case from observers like Mike Koehler, Peter Henning, Stephen Bainbridge and Paul MacAvoy (interviewed by Dan Fisher at Forbes).

P.S.: Discussions of Mexico’s lamentable national institution of la mordida — literally, “the bite” — here, here, and here.