| Submit your comments on this article |
| Economy |
| The Empire (of Walmart) Strikes Back |
| 2010-07-23 |
| It's quite a role reversal: The feds are complaining about getting dragged into court, having to file time-consuming paperwork, and generally being treated like any taxpayer who get crosswise with the IRS. What has the feds riled is this: Wal-Mart had spent more than a million dollars fighting a $7,000 fine from OSHA over the clerk trampled in a store's doorway by a mob in 2008, claiming no one could have foreseen the danger at the time, and that it's being punished for violating an arbitrary standard that didn't exist at the time. Ex Post Facto is the lawyerspeak for it. The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up by Wal-Mart's legal maneuvers. Officials at the Department of Labor say that, over the past five months, 17 percent of the available attorney hours in its New York office have been devoted to this one little case, or the equivalent of five full-time lawyers. Tell us about it. This kind of draining distraction may be new for OSHA, but private employers have to live with the threat of lawsuits every day. |
| Posted by:Anguper Hupomosing9418 |
| #10 If OHSA thinks this fine is right defend it. Poor OSHA. Are those pesky lawyers keeping you from proving your worth to the voters? |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-23 22:34 |
| #9 Kudos to Walmart. If OHSA thinks this fine is right defend it. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2010-07-23 19:08 |
| #8 "The federal agency claims its precious time is being eaten up" Awwwwwww, poor babeeeees. My heart bleeds |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2010-07-23 16:48 |
| #7 This is because Wal-Mart lawyers are full time. They are paid no matter what they do, so Wal-Mart keeps them busy fighting every slip and fall lawsuit they get, most of which are killed as soon as the jury sees the store video. Their lawyers are also a very feisty lot, because they get a huge amount of court time over similar cases, so know exactly what works. They usually beat the snot out of some local contingency lawyer. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2010-07-23 15:03 |
| #6 "I would rather spend $50,000 fighting a bull$hit charge than roll over and pay $5,000 to some slip-and-fall con man." Lowspark, I agree with your sentiment, however... how does paying $50k to lawyers to fight some BS case motivate them (as a group) away from filing the $5k case to start with? The lawyers as a group just end up getting more cash. |
| Posted by: Chemist 2010-07-23 13:29 |
| #5 The more resources they spend messing with Wal Mart, the less they have to mess with the rest of us. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-07-23 12:10 |
| #4 If everyone did that, then lawyers wouldn't be so quick to file these suits. The lawyers are happy to file lawsuits. It's when the lawyers won't gain anything from it that they won't. |
| Posted by: gorb 2010-07-23 11:33 |
| #3 Loser pays all. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2010-07-23 11:11 |
| #2 Good for Wal Mart. I've long advocated that all companies should fight frivolous lawsuits no matter the cost (to the utmost of the company's ability). I would rather spend $50,000 fighting a bull$hit charge than roll over and pay $5,000 to some slip-and-fall con man. If everyone did that, then lawyers wouldn't be so quick to file these suits. |
| Posted by: Lowspark 2010-07-23 11:09 |
| #1 Ain't it a bummer when the shoe is on the other foot??? |
| Posted by: WolfDog 2010-07-23 11:02 |