Walmart Faces a Class Action Over Alleged Nasty Fired Folks
Why a Group of Former Employees, Lawyers and the Public Are Noticed Now
Walmart’s alleged practice — firing qualified Black workers who have a criminal background — is now hit the spotlight under a new class‑action suit lodged last Thursday. The claim roots from longtime calls by progressive watchdogs that the retail giant keeps career‑rotten, lucky points out of the hands of people trying to lift themselves out of poverty.
The Big Bowl of Trump and “Stupid Equals Bad”
At a public briefing held at Federal Plaza, downtown Chicago, Marcos Ceniceros of Warehouse Workers for Justice turned the words into a sizzle while snarked on “record vs. character.” “Your past isn’t your voucher or your worth,” he raked, “it shouldn’t be a pretext for firing Black workers who want to put food on the table.”
What the Plaintiffs Must Show (and Why It’s a Hard Ticket)
- Evidence that Walmart’s arbitrary bans are applied only to Black employees.
- Proof that identical criminal records on white workers don’t trigger the same dismissal.
- Show de facto policies that punish inmates regardless of crime type, which federal law says is nonguaranteed.
Background Bias or Just Plain Biz Logic?
In a labor market with enough fresh, clean‑records applicants, the company simply doesn’t need to pay a risk premium for a criminal history unless they want to close a comp gap. “Seeing a sheriff’s badge on a background report is an easy pick against the curious, small‐scale thieves,” the suit argues.
The Black–and–Crime Debate Fulfills a Bigger Narrative
Many residents point out that store closures in predominantly Black neighborhoods are part of the “food desert” argument. While the underlying crime and theft statistics can’t be entirely dismissed, the reality is they contribute to the closures as business risk, not racism. Of course, the fight about who should get the chance still flunks some logic.
Where Accountability Lives
Was it race or crime? The troll tweet doesn’t fully explain. Businesses cannot pretend that relevant threat dynamics are invisible. If the statistical risk is high, they should handle it on a separate legal basis, not set aside because someone’s minority.
What Free‑Haven Residents Can Do
Only the community can decide whether a place opens or shuts; they also determine how hiring or firing puzzles are arranged. Equity alone doesn’t dissolve the matter of job access or store choices.