July 12, 2004

Lawsuit Takes the Smiling Giant to Court Concerning WM Employees Who are Sexual Predators

*Updated*

This must-read article speaks for itself (here).

Monday, July 12, 2004
The State
Columbia, South Carolina

Suit says children unsafe at Wal-Mart

Few employees get background checks, lawyer says

By RICK BRUNDRETT
Staff Writer


Wal-Mart, the nation�s largest retailer, doesn�t do enough to protect children from store employees who are sexual predators, a local lawsuit contends.

Columbia lawyer David Massey said criminal background checks aren�t done on most Wal-Mart employees nationwide, even though the company has known about employees assaulting children.

Such checks are not required by law.

However, if a court agrees Wal-Mart has been negligent in protecting customers, particularly children, the company might be forced to change its policy on conducting background checks, Massey said.

�Wal-Mart has a cancer going on inside of it, and it�s the hiring of sexual predators,� Massey said during a recent Richland County court hearing.

He represents the family of a Richland County girl who authorities say was fondled in 2000 by a Wal-Mart employee in the electronics department of the Forest Drive supercenter in Columbia. The girl was 10 years old.

No criminal background check was done on the employee, a convicted sex offender who was listed on the state�s sex offender registry, according to a lawsuit filed in 2001 by the girl�s mother.

[...]

Read the entire article, here.

Okay, I'll share my two cents worth on the subject while I am at it.

This will most likely not be the last, nor I doubt the only such case, to be heard concerning such matters within big box stores like Wal-Mart (WM) either.

It would serve WM, along with their huge customer base, much better of course if they do a whole lot better and more than they are currently doing concerning both this particular case as well as the matter in general.

Why does there have to be a law to compel WM and other big box retailers to protect young and vulnerable customers from the likes of sexual predators whom may be in their employ or otherwise be applying for a job to work there?

Apparently, at least in some cases and if I understand things correctly, all they would have to do on a routine basis is to avail themselves of data already available to the public in those communities that have such provided by law regarding previously convicted sexual predators anyway, checking against both new applicants as well as current employees in their hire.

Is it really too much to ask or expect from a good corporate citizen?

WM should be leading the way on this on every level in a meaningful fashion.

This sort of behavior on WM's part simply undoes everything they try to sell the public about their well-crafted and heavily marketed smiley face, community and family friendly, image.

It is a brutal reality WM needs to both face and own up to concerning what should be their corporate responsibility with such matters.

One thing to think about as well is, just for a moment, imagine the shopping public's reaction to people of all ages standing out on the public way just outside the parking entrances to WM center holding up signs accusing WM of being woefully negligent as well as deliberately indifferent concerning the great risk of sexual assaults against children on its property by its employees.

Not a good or healthy image is it?

And that is not even the worst of it of course.

What could WM be thinking?

It just boggles the mind.

That is my opinion for what it is worth.

*Note*: Made several edits, mostly minor in nature, along with a few additions within my own comments for the purposes of clarification and readability: last updated on Monday, July 12, 2004 at 10:59 AM [EDT].

Posted by Morgan on July, 12 2004 at 09:23 AM