Via Turley, Rita Cantrell of Greenville, South Carolina found out how Target (or Targét as some would pretend) got its name. From WYFF4 News,
Rita Cantrell of Greer went to two Target stores in the Greenville area in Feb. 2006, and both times employees accused her of using a counterfeit bill. Cantrell tried to buy items at the store and pay with an older series $100 bill.
[A Target] store employee sent out an e-mail to dozens of other retailers and law enforcement agencies warning them that Cantrell was a shoplifter who tried to spend bogus cash. The e-mail also included Cantrell’s picture.
Two things followed, one fortuitous for Cantrell and one not-at-all-fortuitous for Target. As it happened, Cantrell found out about the email because the place where she worked was on the list of recipients. And second, the United States Secret Service determined that the $100 bills were perfectly legitimate.
Cantrell sued Target and won a verdict of $100,000 compensatory damages and $3 million punitive. Target is, of course, going to appeal, and the likelihood of the verdict being reduced seems pretty high.
Target spokeswoman Bethany Zucco said Friday the company will challenge the ruling.
“We are extremely disappointed by the magnitude of the compensatory and punitive damages awarded by the jury in this case,” Zucco said in a statement. “We sincerely regret any inconvenience incurred by the plaintiff.
Any inconvenience? You sent out a mass email, with her picture, telling the world that she’s a thief and forger, and you’re sorry for the inconvenience? There’s an “apology” that demands some serious puni’s alone.
The importance of this story is not merely its level of offensiveness, but in the actions taken by private players to smear people who are neither guilty of any wrongdoing nor provided an opportunity challenge accusations. It was pure luck that Cantrell learned of the email, and had an opportunity to sue Target for its actions. But the actions themselves are outrageous and, unfortunately, commonplace.
Search your memory. Can you think of anyone you’ve ever met at a Target store who you would trust to play judge, jury and executioner? What qualifications did this unnamed store employee have to send out an email, with a photo no less, smearing this woman across South Carolina? What protections are in place at Target to stop some pimply-faced kid from destroying someone’s life because he didn’t know they made $100 bills before last week?
While theft is a plague for retail stores, fighting theft is not a job for amateurs, with inadequate training, procedures or accountability. As sorry as it may be that there are people who shoplift or pass counterfeit bills at stores like Target, that does not create an entitlement to affirmatively harming innocent people.
While I suspect that the $3 million punitive damages award won’ be upheld in light of the actual damages in the case, I also suspect that whatever the exemplary damages turn out to be will be insufficient to teach a lesson to major retailers who see the destruction of people’s lives as a cost of doing business.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Great story! It does happen, I did a class project on a very similar situation about a Police Officer from Elgin, IL who had been accused of shoplifting at a K-Mart store (I think) and ended up loosing his job over it. Personally, I hope that Target is stuck paying the whole $3M, although, it might affect their promotional budget, so they might not be able to run IRL or Nascar vehicles for a couple of months! Believe me, they spend an ungodly amount of money on that, while allegedly saving you money. I would like to learn how they do that. Take Care. Great Blog – Pat G. from Chicago Area.
Luckily for Target, they have a new advertising campaign in place that has already received full approval from Dr. Tantillo (‘the marketing doctor’), a frequent guest on Box Business News.
Target’s new advertising campaign will absorb a full 3/4 of their marketing budget (at least according to the post on the the Marketing Doctor’s blog ). The campaign will emphasize Target’s addition of more perishables and will fight against the perception that their products cost more than those of Wal-Mart and Kmart, including actual prices of products in their ads. ( I’m not sure I totally believe it that Target costs doesn’t cost a tad more than Walmart or Target..but maybe this just means that dirtier, more disorganized stores with frumpier staff spells VALUE to me).
“The instinct in tough times might be to cut marketing dollars. Bad idea. Smarter marketing is needed now, not less marketing.”
With this little wrench, it looks like Target will definitely need that image-building campaign..
Target didn’t call the woman a “thief and a forger”. They simply said she tried to pass a counterfeit bill.
But let’s face it, how can businesses survive jackpot justice awards like this? It would be a little different if they had some kind of personal vendetta against this woman; but the evidence all indicates that this was an honest mistake on their part. $1000 is more than enough compensation, not $3.1 mil.
How can businesses survive “jackpot justice awards?” By not engaging in wrongful conduct. By not engaging in knee jerk harm to others. If you want to have credibility in your complaint, you can’t ignore the initial wrong and complain only of the consequences. As for the amounts, which are certainly quite high in my opinion, that doesn’t mean that the alternative is to trivialize a significant harm, or that your thoughts on the propriety of the amount trump those of the members of the jury.
As with criminals, the first step in avoiding prison is to not commit the crime. You might want to recognize this detail before you jump off the cliff.
Interesting counter to the above.
Judges have more knowledge of the civil jury system than anyone. In a recent survey:
* Ninety-one percent believe the system is in good condition needing, at best, only minor work.
* Only 1 percent of the judges who responded gave the jury system low marks.
* Judges have great faith in juries to solve complicated issues.
* Ninety-six percent said they agree with jury verdicts most or all of the time.
* Nine of 10 judges said jurors show considerable understanding of legal issues involved in the cases they hear.
Source:
Dallas Morning News and Southern Methodist School of Law survey of federal trial judges in the United States, its territories and protectorates – over 900 judges. About 65% (594) of the federal judges responded. Allen Pusey, “Judges rule in favor of juries: Surveys by Morning News, SMU law school find overwhelming support for citizens’ role in court system,” Dallas Morning News, May 7, 2000.