I never cease to be amazed at how some companies have to be pushed,
prodded or legally compelled to do the right thing. Here are two cases in
point:
A Massachusetts jury this week awarded almost $2 million to a
former Wal-Mart pharmacist who had claimed she was fired after complaining about
being paid less than her male counterparts. The woman, who had worked as a
pharmacist for Wal-Mart in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for more than 10 years,
said in court that she was fired because she asked to be paid the same bonus as
male pharmacists. Wal-Mart paid her the bonus, then fired her two weeks later,
claiming she was dismissed for failing to keep the pharmacy secure. The jury
didn’t buy Wal-Mart’s story, in part because the female pharmacist had received
"rave reviews" in her employment evaluations and was described as "maintaining
the highest levels of professional conduct" in her most recent review.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday, June 18, that a fired
worker was still entitled to unemployment insurance despite the fact that he was
terminated for swearing at his supervisor. The 56-year-old worker, who washed
cars at a Minneapolis-area auto dealer, was told by his supervisor that another
manager wanted him to pick up cigarette butts on the lot. The worker, who had
come to work despite having the flu, said that he was busy and that the other
manager could go "[expletive] himself." The worker was summarily fired and later
was denied his unemployment claim. He appealed the decision. The three-judge
appeals panel ruled that he was eligible for $7,000 in unemployment insurance
"because his conduct was a single incident that did not have a significant
adverse impact on the employer."
So, what do these two cases have in common? From my view, both
show how companies all too often resort to pettiness rather than just doing the
right thing.
The worker who was fired for swearing at a supervisor is a simple
example of this. Should the guy have gotten canned for swearing and
insubordination? Yes, probably so. The problem, in my view, is the next step the
company took: denying him unemployment insurance. A lot of companies do this as
a matter of course—I used to work for an entrepreneur/bully who enjoyed forcing
the many people he fired to fight him for unemployment—but it’s a management
practice that is wrongheaded and shortsighted.
Firing a person is one of the worst things you can do to another
human, no matter what the reason. On top of that, fighting them for unemployment
benefits, which are designed to help bridge the gap for dismissed workers trying
to find new work, is callous and vindictive. This is particularly true in this
case, where the appeals court found that the offense in question was an isolated
incident.
The Wal-Mart case is interesting because despite all the PR work
the world’s largest retailer has done to spruce up its image, the company is
still saddled with the notion that it is a place that doesn’t care much about
how it treats its workers. And what genius at Wal-Mart decided to pay a bonus to
a "rave"-reviewed female pharmacist after she complained about
discrimination—and then turn around and fire her? It’s hard for any PR machine
to put a positive spin on that one.
These two cases are no surprise to me. I’ve seen this pattern all
too often, where a company decides to get petty with a worker, back them into a
corner, and just about dare them to fight back. It’s a dumb way to manage, and
in the end, all it really seems to do is give high-priced labor attorneys more
to do.
= Member Only
