Wal-Mart told to pay pharmacist $16.08 mln for gender bias, sum may drop

1 Legal

1 Legal is a Division of 1 Media

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

 
Need Legal Clients  - Need a Lawyer
 
 

By Jonathan Stempel

<span class="articleLocation”>Wal-Mart Stores Inc has been ordered by
a federal judge to pay $16.08 million to a former New Hampshire
pharmacist in a gender bias case, but the amount is only about
half what a jury awarded and may fall substantially further.

U.S. District Judge Steven McAuliffe also asked the New
Hampshire Supreme Court to advise whether the plaintiff Maureen
McPadden was entitled under state law to any of the $15 million
of “enhanced” damages that comprised most of the award.

Though “reasonable minds can differ,” Wal-Mart “asserts –
not implausibly” that such damages are not available, the
Concord, New Hampshire judge wrote on Jan. 6.

Wal-Mart had no immediate comment on Tuesday, but the
Bentonville, Arkansas-based retailer has said it does not
tolerate discrimination.

McPadden accused the world’s largest retailer of using her
loss of a pharmacy key as a pretext for her November 2012
dismissal from a store in Seabrook, New Hampshire, after more
than 13 years at the retailer.

She said Wal-Mart actually fired her in retaliation for her
raising concerns about whether prescriptions were being filled
properly. McPadden also said her gender played a role, saying a
male pharmacist who later lost his key was not fired.

Jurors originally awarded McPadden $31.22 million, a sum
that McAuliffe said was “to say the least, startling.”

The judge later reduced the punitive damages component to
$300,000 from $15 million as required by federal law, and in a
Jan. 5 order said McPadden deserved just $111,591 of front pay,
one-fifth what the jury had awarded.

Wal-Mart had sought to overturn the entire verdict, but
McAuliffe rejected that request in September.

Rick Fradette, a lawyer for McPadden, said that if enhanced
damages were ever warranted, “it is where the world’s largest
private employer continues to discriminate against women in the
21st century.

“Wal-Mart’s posture has been that it will fight this to the
end,” he said. “We’ll see what the New Hampshire Supreme Court
has to say.”

The case is McPadden v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP, U.S.
District Court, District of New Hampshire, No. 14-00475.



1 Lawyers
1 Lawyers

1 Legal

#1 Lawyers Search Engine

1 Legal is part of the 1 Search Project

Practice Areas - News - Federal - State - Contact Us


1 Legal

1 Legal is a Division of 1 Media

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

 
Need Legal Clients  - Need a Lawyer