Wal-mart pays $2M for...uh...um...er....

Fired Wal-Mart pharmacist awarded $2M
Associated Press
June 20, 2007

A pharmacist who claimed she was fired by Wal-Mart after asking to be paid the same as her male colleagues has won a nearly $2 million award against the retail giant.

A Berkshire Superior Court jury concluded Wal-Mart discriminated against Cynthia Haddad and awarded her nearly $1 million in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages Tuesday.

"It sends a message that you can't treat people poorly because of who they are," said David Belfort, Haddad's attorney.

Great ruling, but what is up with the lawyer's remark. "...You can't treat people poorly because of who they are"? What can you treat them poorly for then?

This wasn't about "Treating people poorly". This was about discrimination (as a legal term, not psychological). While discrimination includes treating someone "poorly" (usually), I think you'd have to agree that simply treating someone bad is not sufficient to cause discrimination.

For example, one could say I treat The Fluffy Professor in my program poorly. Or that I treated my mother poorly. In neither case would I be open for a discrimination law suit.

I'm sure what the fellow meant to say was "sexism is bad", or at least that's what he would have meant to say if it weren't forbidden by an increasingly strong taboo. To claim sexism (even when a jury was pretty convinced of it in fact if not name) is to invite invalidation.