EEOC vs Walgreens For Denying Promoti... Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Email This Page

  AddThis Social Bookmark Button

AALBC.com's Thumper's Corner Discussion Board » Culture, Race & Economy - Archive 2007 » EEOC vs Walgreens For Denying Promotions to Blacks « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Mzuri
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Mzuri

Post Number: 3827
Registered: 01-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2007 - 11:04 pm:   Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)


Walgreen Denies Promotions Based on Race, U.S. Says (Update4)
By Cary O'Reilly

March 7 (Bloomberg) -- Walgreen Co., the largest U.S. drugstore retailer, was sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission over claims the company assigned black managers and denied them promotions based on race.

The retailer, based in Deerfield, Illinois, used race as a reason to send managers, management trainees and pharmacists to low-performing stores and to stores in black communities, the agency claimed in a statement. Walgreen also denied employees promotion opportunities in violation of U.S. law, the EEOC said.

``It is quite serious,'' said Andrea Baran, a senior trial attorney for the EEOC, in an interview. ``We received charges from around 20 individuals in the Kansas City-St. Louis area,'' as well as Florida, Detroit and other regions, she said. ``All of the evidence supported these people's claims.''

The U.S. government lawsuit follows a court victory for the company last month in a case also related to discrimination allegations. Walgreen won a jury verdict in a suit brought by four Texas men who claimed a clerk used a racial slur when they tried to have film developed at a store in Reno, Nevada.

The EEOC is responsible for enforcing the nation's anti- discrimination laws in the workplace. The agency said it sued Walgreen under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after failing to reach a voluntary settlement.

`Saddened'

``We are saddened and disappointed by the EEOC's decision,'' Walgreen spokesman Michael Polzin said. ``We're the nation's best represented retailer in urban areas, and managers of all backgrounds are promoted to senior levels from those locations.''

Walgreen has ``erected barriers that hinder qualified African Americans in their pursuit of advancement through promotions and job assignments,'' said Johnny Tucker, one of the employees who reported the alleged discrimination. ``Our plea is for our judicial system to take notice and require Walgreens to end discrimination against African Americans.''

The EEOC lawsuit seeks back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief for the class of workers.

``This lawsuit demonstrates that the commission's focus on systemic cases will be a powerful weapon to tackle obvious as well as subtle forms of race discrimination,'' EEOC Chairwoman Naomi Earp said in the statement.

Discrimination charges filed with the EEOC against private- sector employers remained near a 14-year low in fiscal 2006, according to agency data.

Complaints alleging race, sex, national origin or other forms of discrimination filed at EEOC field offices rose 0.5 percent to 75,768 in the 12 months through September, from 75,428 the previous year, which was the lowest total since 1992.

Similar Allegations

The U.S. agency said a group of current and former black Walgreen managers filed their own lawsuit making similar allegations in June 2005. That claim, which seeks class action or group status, is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the EEOC said.

Walgreen is expanding through acquisitions as it faces increased competition from Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and other retailers. The company agreed last month to buy 53 pharmacies in 11 states from Familymeds Group Inc. for about $60 million.

Walgreen shares fell 40 cents to $44.05 at 4 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading. They are little changed this year, leaving the company with a market value of $44.2 billion.

The case is EEOC v. Walgreen, 07-172, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=acaFL4hDOOLg


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Chrishayden
AALBC .com Platinum Poster
Username: Chrishayden

Post Number: 3850
Registered: 03-2004

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Thursday, March 08, 2007 - 12:11 pm:   Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The more things change the more they stay the same--

And yet we have many in the black community who try to tell us this don't happen no mo'.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Serenasailor
Veteran Poster
Username: Serenasailor

Post Number: 1403
Registered: 01-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 12:27 am:   Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

The more things change the more they stay the same--

And yet we have many in the black community who try to tell us this don't happen no mo'.

THAT'S TRUE LOL!!!!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Abm
"Cyniquian" Level Poster
Username: Abm

Post Number: 8688
Registered: 04-2004

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Posted on Friday, March 09, 2007 - 11:44 am:   Delete Post View Post/Check IP Print Post    Ban Poster IP (Moderator/Admin only)

Not criticizing what the claimants bring suit. But if I were being sent to an under-performing division of Walgreens, what I would have done going in is the following:

1) Fully determined WHY the store is underperforming. Maybe it's struggling because it's in a depressed/developing area that is simply incapable of performing as well as others performed, at least in the short term. OR maybe the place had been so grossly mismanaged before that it failed to reap the benefit of countless opportunities to do better.

2) I'd obtain some assurances - in WRITING - that I would get all of the resources, time and attention from senior management I consider necessary to turn the place around.

3) I'd have in built into my performance assessments that special consideration be given to the evironment I was being asked to steward so that I was, essentially, being graded on a more fair/favorable...curve.


Wonder how much of the above the claimants did.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration

Advertise | Chat | Books | Fun Stuff | About AALBC.com | Authors | Getting on the AALBC | Reviews | Writer's Resources | Events | Send us Feedback | Privacy Policy | Sign up for our Email Newsletter | Buy Any Book (advanced book search)

Copyright © 1997-2008 AALBC.com - http://aalbc.com