http://www.targetfiling.blogspot.com/
A seperate blog for the 42 page ‘Target AP Directives’
http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com/
See the Target Corp v. John Doe case summary at:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/target-corp-v-doe
==============================
Going too Far?
Witness: Target Worker Wrestled, Choked Female Customer
By Chris Morran The Consumerist, on September 15, 2010 1:15 PM
Yesterday, Cherie was shopping at a Target in Cincinnati when she claims she witnessed a Target loss prevention associate "brutally detain, wrestle, strike and choke a shopper for more than three minutes."
Here is the direct link to a long story which was posted on the Consummerist site (http://consumerist.com/2010/09/witness-target-worker-wrestled-choked-female-customer.html) and just shows yet again how Tarbutt AP thugs treat customers. Why they continue to get away with it is unknown. They are in violation of so many sections of their own AP Directives that you must assume that Tarbutt has them only for 'show' and not to be enforced.
You can see them on this blog or seperately at:
1) Target Corrective Action Guidelines 2) AP Directives 2006 http://targetccguidelines.blogspot.com/
Other Target sites you might want to look at:
http://www.targetfiling.blogspot.com/
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/target-corp-v-doe
========================================
From: http://www.targetfiling.blogspot.com/
I bring to your attention the interesting case of:
Marjorie Ann Diaz v. Target Corporation
CV 10-1103 AG (MLGx), now before UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA and a case that is going to proceed as a class action against Target.
This case was removed from Orange County Superior Court to U.S. District Court 7/21/10. The original complaint runs 64 pages with 64 additional pages of attachments. The PACER Docket report itself runs for 9 pages. Clearly this is going to be a long case with serious implications for Target nationwide.
Target of course whines about being sued and puts forth many objections and asks for the matter to be tossed out, but as the Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD says: “Defendant Target Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as to all claims”.
Plaintiff Diaz filed a class action complaint on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated. Ms Diaz was an hourly non-exempt employee of Target in Irvine, California, from approximately October 2000 until May 2009, and alleges the following:
(1) failure to provide meal periods under California Labor Code § 226.7;
(2) failure to provide rest periods,
(3) failure to timely pay wages due at termination,
(4) failure to comply with itemized wage statement provisions,
(5) failure to pay overtime compensation,
(6) failure to reimburse expenses,
(7) penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act,
(8) violations of the Unfair Competition Law under California Business & Professions Code,
(9) violations of the Unfair Practices Act under California Business & Professions Code
Despite all the bitching and moaning the Judge said in part: “At this stage, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to move forward as a class action.”
So all you cart pushers out there can rest easy, Tarbutt has its tit in a nice California ringer and I will keep you up to date on how things develop.
You can find out additional info on this case by looking at the 2/24/10 post further down on this blog, click on the direct link: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com/2009/12/calif-target-suit-needs-more-plaintiffs.html
and you can see the full 10 pages of the above reference Order Denying Motion To Dismiss at:
http://diaz-target.blogspot.com/
