Target Corp. Not so great?

Ford SportTrac Forum

Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
2,958
Reaction score
0
Location
Seattle, WA
From the Seattle Times...



PORTLAND — A jury has decided that Target Corp. must pay out nearly $1 million in a case in which a man lost his job shortly after returning from two weeks of service with the Oregon National Guard.



James Patton sued Target under a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against military personnel and under state common law for wrongful discharge.



In a verdict issued last week, a jury at U.S. District Court in Portland awarded Patton $84,970 in lost wages, other economic damages and non-economic damages. The jury also ordered Target to pay $900,000 in punitive damages. Under Oregon law, however, 60 percent of punitive damage awards go to the state's crime victim assistance fund.



"We're pleased with the outcome and the message it sends to employees of service people," said Mark A. Turner, Patton's attorney.



A spokeswoman for Target said the company plans to appeal.



"We believe this entire case is completely without merit and no award of damages is appropriate," the spokeswoman, Lena Michaud, said in a statement. "Target has a strong history of supporting its team members, many of whom are veterans, reservists, or members of the National Guard."



Patton worked in Target's distribution center in Albany. He learned that he had been demoted after returning from two weeks of active service in June 2003.



After telling his co-workers by e-mail, Patton contacted employee support from the National Guard. Military officials tried but failed to get Target officials to reverse their decision.



Target fired Patton in mid-July, telling him that his e-mail to his colleagues was unprofessional and disruptive.



Jurors agreed with Target officials who said Patton's demotion had nothing to do with his military service. But the jury determined that company officials retaliated against Patton for getting the National Guard involved.

 
Okay, so after reading the story I can think there are two extremes here:



On one end, Target is a heartless company that doesn't support our military men and women and uses their service to our country as an excuse to demote and fire them.



On the other, Target is the victim of a disgruntled ex-employee that received a deserved demotion, then went postal and sent inappropriate emails to co-workers and cried "foul" to the National Guard; ultimately getting fired for the unprofessional conduct that resulted from his disgruntled nature.



I suspect the truth is somewhere between those two extremes, and there's not enough in the story for me to sway me towards one or the other.



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sorry, but I don't see why the state should take any of the punitive damages for a crime victims fund. That might apply in a criminal case (thus related to victims of crime), however this was totally a civil matter. I wonder if that little bit of information was brought up in court before the punitive damages were awarded???



...Rich
 
My point exactly, sad that we have to stoop so low, on either side. Nobody's responsible for their actions, it's always somebody's else's fault. And lawyers have to ruin (I mean run) our lives.
 
I recall it hasn't been many years ago since Target refused to support the troops but do support gay and lesbian groups. Then even more recently refused to let the Salvation Army bell ringers solicit donations at Christmas in front of their stores.
 
You have to wonder how many companies and people have been hurt because people don't have all the facts.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Doug,



Don't be a sucker. Just because it is on the internet does not mean it its true.





Tom
 
Gene,



I hear you, and thanks for posting from snopes.



Too many people today get their opinions and facts from hearsay. They get influenced from little anecdotes passed down from friends of friends and relatives, etc.



If someone personally has done me wrong, or if I have had a first-hand encounter with a corporation, representatives from a group, etc, then I will allow that to sway me...some, but I am keenly aware of stereotyping and the flaw of the attribution principle.



But to form your opinion of corporations and of others on what other people have told you, or worse yet, what you get from the media or Internet makes one nothing more than a programmed robot that cannot think for themself.



TJR
 
Target is on my craplist these days and i don;t think I will be buying from them anymore...

We had a baby shower and got 2 similar gifts.. Basically car seats with different options. The one we decided to return was from target, but no reciept.... Figured i could just get a store merhcandise credit and buy something we still need.... This is pretty standard with all stores i know if there is no reciept.... Nooo not Target if it's over 40 bucks and no reciept no return even for credit..... Caught me by suprise and I was a bit embarrassed but that in my opinion is crap..... I am through with a store with that kind of return policy....

:angry:

Joseymack
 
I see Josey's nose in the corner...his face is in the other corner. Spite has them seperated.



That's a pretty common return policy. Few stores actually put their own price stickers on merchandise anymore now that there are mfgr UPC codes on everything and all prices are in the retail POS systems. So there is no real way without a reciept to be sure that the merchandise came from their store, and for higher ticket items they could get stuck with merch they no longer sell and the mfgr won't take back, thus the policy.



You should be mad, I guess, but be mad at the gift giver. Any gift that is given, especially for showers and such, should come with a "gift receipt" for this very reason (you get dupes, etc).



TJR
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TJR has a good point. I'm sure Target would loose lots of money buying back their on merchandise that was stolen or not purchased from their store. Put yourself in their position, someone brings in a big screen TV and gets a store credit or refund that was in fact stolen. Now you've not only lost money because it was stolen, now you lost the same amount by giving a credit or refund.



Get some sort of receipt
 
Regardless of what you think of Target's return policy, it is significantly better than Walmart's. At Target, if you buy something with a credit card, then want to return it but you lost the receipt, they will look up the transaction for you using the credit card, and process your return, regardless of whether it's over $40 or not. At Walmart, if you lost the receipt and want to make a return (not exchange or store credit), you're SOL, even if you bought it on your credit card.
 
I used to be an Executive Level Mgr for Target. (Until 2001)



I can tell you that the company was very strict about upholding applicable laws RE: Miltary Leave and FMLA. (My brother is an Army Reservist as well - I would have absolutely NO reservations about him working there and needing to go off on his 2 week a year commitment or even getting deployed and having his job back upon his return)



The company seemed very fair and orderly about everything they did. I have seen cases where Managers did not follow the law or proper procedure and the company was quick to overturn the decision in favor of what was the right thing to do.



Since the company reviewed this situation and ultimately terminated him, my analysis is that this individual did something that was very deserving of demotion & termination. Naturally the company cannot post his emails to his fellow workers on the net & let everyone to see what he said & did but I am 100% sure if they did, everyone would understand. (Thats how they conduct themselves from my experience)



As for the return policy. I don't remember having the $40 limit. That must be new. They always seemed to have a slightly more strict return policy which I was constantly overriding in the favor of the guest.



Regards,

Justin
 
Top