In August 2002, the Greens, a black couple, were shopping in a local department store in Kansas City. They allege that a sales clerk named Linda McCrary refused to help them purchase several items, forcing them to wait for another clerk (who did assist them in completing the $500 purchase). They then allege that, while waiting for that helpful clerk to sell them a watch, they heard McCrary curse at them, using a racial slur, and then stalk off. The helpful clerk immediately apologized, as did a sales manager. But nonetheless, this incident was so traumatic for the couple — including the husband, who was a police officer — that they not only felt too distressed to finish buying the watch, but they felt the need to return the items they had already purchased. A day or two later, the store manager called the Greens, apologized again, told them that McCrary had been fired, and offered them a 20% discount off their purchase. After they rejected his offer, he sent them a letter of apology and again offered a discount.

Now, assuming the Greens are telling the truth — there seems to be substantial evidence supporting their version of events — McCrary deserves to be condemned wholeheartedly, and the Greens were entitled to an apology (which they got). But that, of course, wouldn’t allow them to cash in on this incident. So, instead the couple waited two years, and then filed a lawsuit demanding $5.5 million, claiming that the store had illegally violated their rights to make contracts because they were black.

The lower court granted summary judgment to the store, noting that other clerks were willing to help the Greens and they could have completed their purchase. But last week, an appeals court reversed that ruling, holding that a jury could find that the Greens were prevented from completing their purchase, and the store was negligent in hiring/not firing McCrary sooner. Perhaps the most damaging part of the court’s opinion was when it noted that the store, as employer, could be liable for failure to investigate McCrary before hiring her for a routine retail sales job:

Dillard’s also apparently did not inquire into unexplained anomalies in McCrary’s employment history when she applied for a job at its store. After being purportedly “downsized,” McCrary moved from a relatively high paying job at AT&T to an unskilled position at Kmart. Kmart employed her for only two months and laid her off in the month of December when the holiday shopping season would presumably increase Kmart’s demand for labor.

When stores can be sued for millions of dollars for not “inquiring” about trivial resume issues involving low level employees, that will do wonders for employment rates.

Amusing side note: the Greens originally filed their complaint on August 9, 2004; a week later they filed an amended complaint. Aside from correcting a few typographical errors, the only change they made from the original to the amended complaint was to correct their demand for punitive damages from “$500,000” to “$5,000,000.” I guess that was about the money.