Walgreens Settles (East St. Louis, Clinton: attorney, foreclosure, work)

[Manigault]

I love it when a company coughs up major coin and then says it does not "admit wrongdoing". Right, they had that money lying around.

EAST ST. LOUIS, Ill. (CN) - A federal judge signed off on a $24 million settlement alleging widespread racial bias at Walgreens, the nation's largest drugstore chain. U.S. District Judge G. Patrick Murphy gave final consent to a deal that will split $20 million between 10,000 past and present black Walgreens workers. Attorneys will split an additional $4.5 million...
Walgreens did not admit wrongdoing.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2008/03/26/Walgreens_Settle_Race_Bias_Suit_For_$24M.htm

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

This must have been a hell of a case,

[illini84]

Interesting...I'd never heard anything about this.

As a side note, I was in a St. Louis Walgreen's a few months back waiting to get a prescription filled. A black man was very upset and yelling at the pharmacists, threatening a law suit. Turns out, the pharmacists substituted his regular Vicodin prescription to a generic one without asking him first. Ultimately, between some bullsh*t about the generics not "easing his pain", he wanted the name-brand Vicodin because it has the "V" logo on the pill, while the generics do not. Makes the street market value a little lower without that logo Oh St. Louis...

[irish setter girl]

The Walgreen family seems to be in all kinds of legal issues. One of the Walgreens has a home on the north shore that is in foreclosure and set for auction in the nearing months. This is the lady that has been feuding with her neighbors because she owns three large pigs and keeps them on her property. The neighbors say this violates the city code against livestock on residential property. She has been the news several times of the years with her pigs.

[Manigault]

Originally Posted by illini84

Interesting...I'd never heard anything about this.

As a side note, I was in a St. Louis Walgreen's a few months back waiting to get a prescription filled. A black man was very upset and yelling at the pharmacists, threatening a law suit. Turns out, the pharmacists substituted his regular Vicodin prescription to a generic one without asking him first. Ultimately, between some bullsh*t about the generics not "easing his pain", he wanted the name-brand Vicodin because it has the "V" logo on the pill, while the generics do not. Makes the street market value a little lower without that logo Oh St. Louis...

I'll bet he could unload some of it a few miles down the river in Cape Giradeau; from whence "rushed out" a famous radio commentator!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Manigault

I love it when a company coughs up major coin and then says it does not "admit wrongdoing". Right, they had that money lying around.

Without commenting on the merits of this particular case (I don't know anything about it), this type of thing is not uncommon. Juries are unpredictable, especially when it's "little guy versus big bad corporation." Sometimes it makes more sense to cut your losses than to gamble with a jury verdict, even if the plaintiff's case is relatively weak. It's not that they just have 24 million dollars lying around; their bigger concern is that they don't have 240 million dollars lying around.

Not to mention it may well be cheaper to settle than to keep racking up legal bills. Unfortunately, the "American Rule" in civil cases (meaning, each party pays their own legal fees regardless of outcome) encourages litigation to such an extent that well over 90% of cases are settled out of court, often without regard to the merits of the case because it's cheaper to pay someone to go away than to fight it through to vindication. They call it "The American Rule" because we are about the only nation on earth with an English system of common law that requires the victor to pay its own legal fees as a matter of course.

[Manigault]

Paying to settle a marginal case is one thing but settling a loser is quite another. I've had a law degree for about 30 years and $24 million buys a lot of legal representation. Walgreens could have received defense costs for a frivolous lawsuit or lies in a lawsuit, American rule or no American rule.

The amount of the settlement makes me believe that the case has a lot of validity, but I do not disregard the cost of bad publicity a losing judgment would have had on a firm in the consumer market. What is amazing is that there has been very little media commentary on the judgment.

[arpschneider]

Originally Posted by irish setter girl

The Walgreen family seems to be in all kinds of legal issues.

I find that Walgreens is extremely mercenary and predatory in their siting process. In the case of the store recently built in Clinton, IL, they forced two independent druggists out of business (basically: "send us your clients or we will kill you!") and demolished the best eatery in town to locate the business, so at least three local businesses "died" as a result of their hostile take-over.

They could have just as easily located elsewhere, since there are plenty of open places available they could have chosen, but they strategically located just about as close to the two independents as was physically possible (and still build one of their "they-all-look-alike copycat tilt-up" buildings).

At least Wal-Mart usually builds their stores on the edge of town, rather than displacing existing businesses and then proceed to "horn-in" on established clientèle in such an "in-your-face" manner by simply demolishing them first!

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Manigault

The amount of the settlement makes me believe that the case has a lot of validity, but I do not disregard the cost of bad publicity a losing judgment would have had on a firm in the consumer market. What is amazing is that there has been very little media commentary on the judgment.

I don't know... 24 million for a class of 10,000 doesn't seem like all that much.