Quantcast

Wal-Mart Spending Millions to Fight $7K Fine in Stampede Death

070710walmart.jpg On November 28th 2008, a Wal-Mart employee on Long Island was trampled to death during a stampede of 2,000 rabid consumers who broke down the doors just before 5 a.m. In a settlement that spared the company criminal charges, Wal-Mart agreed to adopt new crowd management techniques in all 92 of its stores in New York State, set up a $400,000 fund for customers hurt in the stampede, and to donate $1.5 million to community programs in Nassau County. But one penalty still remains, and the Times reports that Wal-Mart is fighting it tooth and nail.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] has fined Wal-Mart $7,000, accusing the company of failing to provide a place of employment that was "free from recognized hazards." OSHA claims Wal-Mart failed to protect workers from a situation that was "likely to cause death or serious physical harm" because of "crowd surge or crowd trampling." Instead of just coughing up the infinitesimal sum, Wal-Mart has spent an estimated $2 million on legal fees fighting the penalty. The litigation, in turn, has required the Labor Department to sacrifice five full-time lawyers, and 17 percent of the available attorney hours in the department’s New York office have been devoted to the case.

"OSHA wants to hold Wal-Mart accountable for a standard that was neither proposed nor issued at the time of the incident," David Tovar, a Wal-Mart spokesman, tells the Times. "The citation has far-reaching implications for the retail industry that could subject retailers to unfairly harsh penalties and restrictions on future sales promotions." Wal-Mart didn't admit any wrongdoing in its settlement with Nassau County prosecutors, and store officials are worried that if the OSHA Review Commission upholds the $7,000 penalty, it'll set a precedent that will subject Wal-Mart to OSHA monitoring every time they have a sale that might incite a stampede of unhinged, acquisitive idiots.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Comments [rss]

  • virgilstarkwell

    OK, this makes an attention-getting headline ("Oooh, look at big bad Walmart and how they don't want to admit their wrong") but it's shoddy journalism at best. But the Walmart guy makes it pretty clear that it's not about the fine but rather the precedent that it sets.

    Whether you agree with his rationale is one thing, but the premise is sound. In other words, it's obviously not about the $7,000.00. But you knew that. It's just not as interesting or inflammatory article to write.

  • Potty Boy

    Yeah, it's what the lawyers call, without a hint of irony, the shark effect.

blog comments powered by Disqus

send a tip

tips@gothamist.com