Wal-Mart Cleared in Negligent Hiring Case

[deadparrot]

COLUMBIA, S.C. - A jury on Tuesday cleared Wal-Mart of negligence in hiring a convicted sex offender who fondled a 10-year-old girl while on the job.

The girl's mother sued Wal-Mart in 2001, claiming the retail giant should have known Bobby Devon Randall was a convicted sex offender. The family sought damages of up to $5 million in connection with the September 2000 incident.

Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., said at the time it was not legally required to do background checks and that the employee who fondled the girl lied about his criminal past on his job application.

The company decided in August 2004 that it would begin conducting background checks on new hires nationwide.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060502/ap_on_bi_ge/wal_mart_suit

[sakabatou]

1. Stupid, stupid, stupid...

[saigon68]

2. They Make most employees " Piss In a Bottle"

So they aren't using illegal drugs and make mistakes to affect the WalMart Bottom line.

You'd think they would try and keep felony thieves and Pedophiles out of their employment too.

[OKthatsIT]

4. good point

[Haole Girl]

3. I'm sure Wal-Mart had the very best lawyers money can buy. n/t

[kikiek]

5. I think it is a mixed bag. Recently my employer sent me a form to sign

after realizing they hadn't done a criminal check on me (I've been there 7 years now). I balked when I read the form. They did find my original consent that authorized the credit check and criminial background check and used that. The new employees sign one agreeing to an "investigative" check if they so desire. That means you authorize them to do (but not limited to) credit, criminal, and asking your neighbors or anyone you know about your character, habits, etc. I have no problems with criminal and will even justify the credit checks. Beyond that is just too invasive for my taste. These types of things seem to always find a life of their own.