Archive for the ‘Employment/Workplace’ Category

UK Nurse Told to Follow Rules, Cries “Christian Persecution”.

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

Why is it so many people think “religious beliefs” should exempt them from any rule/law they don’t want to follow? Then they turn around and cry persecution when they find out they don’t have special rights just because of their lifestyle choices.

Shirley Chaplin, 54, of Exeter, said she was removed from front-line duties for refusing to take off her cross.

Richard Younger-Ross, Lib Dem MP for Teignbridge, said it appeared to be a case of “religious bias”.
…..

Actually, it isn’t:

The Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust has said its uniform and dress code prohibits front-line staff wearing any type of necklace because of health and safety concerns.

So it’s not a case of “religious bias” but an across the board policy that happens to include crucifixes on chains, particularly those on long chains such as the one Chaplin wears. People working in health care settings are in close contact with patients, and often have to bend/stoop over them. Necklaces, particularly longer chains and pendants, can dangle and become contaminated. When the caregiver moves to the next patient s/he could easily pass on an infection via the necklace (it’s highly improbable that a necklace is going to be washed routinely as hands are). Yes, it’s a remote risk, but a risk all the same. Furthermore it’s possible that confused or agitated patients could grab a dangling necklace, or that the chain could get caught in patient apparatus, which puts both caregiver and patient at risk.

I worked for 20 years with adults who had disabilities. While our dress codes didn’t forbid any particular jewelry we were warned strongly against certain types of jewelry that could pose hazardous with agitated or confused individuals. Among those things were long chains and hoop or dangling earrings, all of which could be grabbed by agitated or confused clients. At one agency we also had a dress code that forbade tops with political or religious statements/slogans, and we weren’t allowed to discuss religion/politics with the clients. This was not, as some might like to claim, a matter of “religious persecution”, but to avoid hot-button topics that could cause agitation among the clients (who had mental illnesses). We were there to provide care to our clients, not to worry about our personal agendas.

The trust said it would only be acceptable to wear a crucifix pinned inside a uniform lapel or pocket.

So it’s not that Chaplin is forbidden to wear the crucifix while on duty, it’s that she can’t flaunt it to everyone in the manner she wishes to.

…..
“I can’t explain how important the cross is to me. It’s how I express my faith.
…..
“My Christian faith is what motivates me to care for others.
…..
She added: “You cannot separate a person’s faith and motivation from other areas of their life, including their work.
…..

Translation: I went into nursing to earn religious brownie points. If my patients and co-workers can’t tell from at least 10 feet away that I’m super-Christiany then how is the Big Guy going to know to give me a check mark in His book? If people can’t see my cross what good are all my efforts? It’s not like I’m doing this just to help people!

Chaplin isn’t being perseucted. She’s just being told to follow the rules that apply to all. The only thing being harmed here is her astounding religious ego and her delusion that unless every person she works with knows she’s a Christian the world will implode.

 

Employer Demands Photos of Transgender Woman’s Genitals as Condition for Employment.

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

This is yet another example of the outrageous indignities transgender people face in a world that doesn’t understand them and treats them as less than human. It also shows once more why we need a fully inclusive ENDA. Kate Lynn Blatt was working for Manpower, a temporary employment service. She was told that as a condition for continued employment she would need to provide documentation from her surgeon of her sex-reassignment surgery and photos of her genitalia. (She wasn’t asking for the surgery or anything related to be covered by company health insurance. She was only asking to be employed by Manpower.)

…..
Blatt, 28, said she found the request “repugnant” and “disgusting,” and declined to comply. She viewed the request as a form of sexual harassment, she added.

“I was shocked and disgusted,” Blatt said. “It felt like I was being reduced to a mere sex object. I was trying to work there in a dignified and private manner, but my dignity and privacy were constantly being violated.”

…..
Blatt filed bias complaints against Sapa and Manpower with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, alleging wrongful discharge based on sex and disability. She said her disability is gender dysphoria.
…..
Bethany Perkins, a spokesperson for Manpower Inc., said she couldn’t comment on the specifics of Blatt’s complaints. But she said Manpower is committed to ensuring a safe and non-exploitive work environment.

I don’t consider demanding photos of your employees genitals, particularly when you target only certain employees, to be safe or non-exploitative. I wish Blatt well on her suit. People shouldn’t be targeted and degraded as a condition of employment.

 
This leads me to wonder: Countless employees proclaim they are religious and, based on that, demand special accommodations from their employers. They ask for time off on “religious holidays”, refuse to serve certain people because it “conflicts with their religious beliefs” and even refuse to perform job functions because they “conflict with their religious beliefs”. Do employers ever demand employees prove they are of the faith they say they are? Do they demand to see photos of circumcised genitals, notes from the employee’s clergy person, copies of their First Communion, etc? Or do they just take the employee’s proclamation of religiosity at face value when faced with demands for special accommodations and privileges?

 

Headline Roundup.

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

News headlines from around the nation.

 
Exclusive: ‘Pregnant Man’ Gives Birth to Second Child

Thomas Beatie, the controversial “pregnant man,” gave birth to his second child, a healthy baby boy, early this morning, “20/20″ has learned.

Sources close to the couple say that it was a “natural childbirth” and that they have not yet decided on the boy’s name. Beatie’s wife, Nancy, will be breastfeeding their son, as she did with their daughter, Susan Juliette, who was born last June.
…..

More on Thomas Beatie.

 
Under Siege: Life for Low-Income Latinos in the South

In Tennessee, a young mother is arrested and jailed when she asks to be paid for her work in a cheese factory.

In Alabama, a migrant bean picker sees his life savings confiscated by police during a traffic stop.

In Georgia, a rapist goes unpunished because his 13-year-old victim is undocumented.

These are just a few examples of the injustices that confront Latino immigrants as they struggle to gain a foothold in the South.
……
Instead of acting to prohibit and eliminate systematic exploitation and discrimination against Latinos, state and local governments in much of the South have exacerbated the situation. A number of Southern communities, for example, have enacted ordinances designed to limit services to undocumented immigrants and make their lives as difficult as possible, with the ultimate goal of driving them away. In addition, many law enforcement agencies in the South, armed with so-called 287(g) agreements with the federal government, are enforcing immigration law in a way that has led to accusations of systematic racial profiling and has made Latino crime victims and witnesses more reluctant to cooperate with police. Such policies have the effect of creating a subclass of people who exist in a shadow economy, beyond the protection of the law.
…..

 

Targeting D.C. homeless may soon be hate crime

Legislation before the D.C. Council would make it a hate crime to attack one of the District’s estimated 6,228 homeless people because they live on the streets.
…..
The District’s protected classes are: “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, family responsibility, physical disability, matriculation, or political affiliation.”

A person convicted of a hate crime faces up to 50 percent more time behind bars and a 50 percent higher fine.

Maryland is the only state to include homelessness in its hate crimes statute. Gov. Martin O’Malley signed the bill last month.

The National Coalition for the Homeless reported 774 documented acts of violence committed against homeless people between 1999 and 2007 — 217 of which resulted in death. The list only includes acts of violence by “housed people” against victims selected because they are living on the streets.
…..

 
Arizona lawmakers seek to strip domestic partners of health coverage

Arizona lawmakers are moving to take away health insurance coverage for the domestic partners of state and university employees. These rights were gained by domestic partners only one year ago.

About 750 workers would be affected says the Department of Administration. If put into affect, the state budget would define “dependents” of state employees who are entitled to coverage as a spouse or a child younger than 19, or younger than 23 if a full-time student.
…..
“This particular benefit is critical because it is doing exactly what society asks us to do, and that’s to take care and be responsible for our families,” McCullough-Jones said.

 
Christian group sues for right to burn gay teen novel (No, I’m not making this up.)

In a scene which appears to have been lifted straight out of Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451, a group of Christians in Wisconsin has launched a legal claim demanding the right to publicly burn a copy of a book for teenagers which they deem to be “explicitly vulgar, racial [sic], and anti-Christian”.
…..
Their suit says that “the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” and that it contains derogatory language that could “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”
…..
“The word ‘faggot’ is very derogatory and slanderous to all males,” the suit continues. “Using the word ‘Nigger’ is dangerously offensive, disrespectful to all people. These words can permeate violence.” The suit also claims that the book “constitutes a hate crime, and that it degrades the community”.
…..

This, coming from the same sort of people who insist hate-crimes laws are bad because they’ll make the Bible illegal and put pastors in jail for preaching “God’s Word”. Hey, I never claimed they were sane.

 

All Things Considered, It’s Been a Very Good Week.

Saturday, May 17th, 2008

Yesterday’s amazing news was that we finally have marriage equality here in California, though it doesn’t become effective until next month. My fiancee and I will be among the first in line to get married on or shortly after June 15th. We already have our engagement rings (below, from Love and Pride ) and are going to be shopping for our wedding bands soon.

Ring

Today I got a great new job that I’d been hoping for. Now I’ve got two very good reasons for a celebratory dinner this weekend.

Finally, this afternoon I got the first issue of my new Scientific American subscription. New reading material is always something to be happy about. Now off to enjoy it.

 

Specialist Jeremy Hall, Revisited.

Saturday, May 3rd, 2008

I’ve mentioned Specialist Jeremy Hall two times previously. Well, he’s in the news again over his lawsuit against the army.

FORT RILEY, Kan. — When Specialist Jeremy Hall held a meeting last July for atheists and freethinkers at Camp Speicher in Iraq, he was excited, he said, to see an officer attending.

But minutes into the talk, the officer, Maj. Freddy J. Welborn, began to berate Specialist Hall and another soldier about atheism, Specialist Hall wrote in a sworn statement. “People like you are not holding up the Constitution and are going against what the founding fathers, who were Christians, wanted for America!” Major Welborn said, according to the statement.

Major Welborn told the soldiers he might bar them from re-enlistment and bring charges against them, according to the statement.

Last month, Specialist Hall and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, an advocacy group, filed suit in federal court in Kansas, alleging that Specialist Hall’s right to be free from state endorsement of religion under the First Amendment had been violated and that he had faced retaliation for his views. In November, he was sent home early from Iraq because of threats from fellow soldiers.
…..

Specialist Hall’s lawsuit is the latest incident to raise questions about the military’s religion guidelines. In 2005, the Air Force issued new regulations in response to complaints from cadets at the Air Force Academy that evangelical Christian officers used their positions to proselytize. In general, the armed forces have regulations, Ms. Lainez said, that respect “the rights of others to their own religious beliefs, including the right to hold no beliefs.”

To Specialist Hall and other critics of the military, the guidelines have done little to change a culture they say tilts heavily toward evangelical Christianity. Controversies have continued to flare, largely over tactics used by evangelicals to promote their faith. Perhaps the most high-profile incident involved seven officers, including four generals, who appeared, in uniform and in violation of military regulations, in a 2006 fund-raising video for the Christian Embassy, an evangelical Bible study group.

“They don’t trust you because they think you are unreliable and might break, since you don’t have God to rely on,” Specialist Hall said of those who proselytize in the military. “The message is, ‘It’s a Christian nation, and you need to recognize that.’ ”
…..

That old “Christian Nation” canard. America is not, and never has been, a Christian Nation. Sadly the revisionists will never tire of repeating that as they hope repetition will make it true.

Complaints include prayers “in Jesus’ name” at mandatory functions, which violates military regulations, and officers proselytizing subordinates to be “born again.” After getting the complainants’ unit and command information, Mr. Weinstein said, he calls his contacts in the military to try to correct the situation.

“Religion is inextricably intertwined with their jobs,” Mr. Weinstein said. “You’re promoted by who you pray with.”
…..
Specialist Hall said he did not advertise his atheism. But his views became apparent during his second deployment in 2006. At a Thanksgiving meal, someone at his table asked everyone to pray. Specialist Hall did not join in, explaining to a sergeant that he did not believe in God. The sergeant got angry, he said, and told him to go to another table.
…..
Though with a different unit now at Fort Riley, Specialist Hall said the backlash had continued. He has a no-contact order with a sergeant who, without provocation, threatened to “bust him in the mouth.” Another sergeant allegedly told Specialist Hall that as an atheist, he was not entitled to religious freedom because he had no religion.

There are definite and serious violations of Church/State Separation involved here. And the sergeant who claimed Hall had no freedom of religion because he had no religion reminds me very much of this individual who claimed the Constitution doesn’t protect atheists. How hateful some people can be.

I now move on to this letter I came across which makes a common false assertion about atheists.

I read with interest your recent story about 23-year-old U.S. Army Specialist Jeremy Hall who calls himself an atheist and feels harassed because his superiors challenged him in his ability to lead people of faith in combat conditions.
Advertisement

This young man’s convictions and character must be very weak if he had to resort to a lawsuit and a lawsuit in a time of war. Atheist means simply “no god.” If he feels this is a fact, why argue? It should be moot to him.

I suspect, however, that this young man doubts his atheism and senses that there may indeed be a God with whom he must reckon with and the fight is not with his superiors but his heart in this matter.

We need military leaders at all levels who can respect the beliefs and convictions of the ones they lead. If, in the case of this young man, they profess no faith, respect them, too. We cannot, however, suspend any discussion of faith or our chaplaincies because of a small number of insecure atheist who should really say they are agnostic.

A dishonest atheist is just as annoying as a dishonest believer.
Walter Jackson
Millbrook

Would Mr. Jackson claim a Christian who sued an employer for harassment and threats of physical violence was weak of character? Would he think for a minute the Christian was doubting his faith? I don’t imagine he would.

So why is it that atheists are held to different standards than Christians? Why should we tolerate verbal harassment and threats of violence where others would not? Why are our intentions always called into question whenever anything like this occurs?

Maybe it’s because some people can’t fathom that others are actually content not being like them, and that all the begging and even threatening in the world won’t change things. That seems to strike a deep chord in certain people, and their reactions are very unpleasant indeed.

 

Are You a Second-Class Citizen in Your State?

Saturday, April 19th, 2008

The handy chart from eQualityGiving will help you determine how your rights stack up in six different categories: Hate Crimes, Non-Discrimination, Marriage, Gender, Youth and Parenting. Hat-tip to Autumn Sandeen.

 

The score indicates the number of Equality Goals that have been reached in that state. Each “YES” gives 1 point. Half a point is given for partial achievement of an Equality Goal. One of the seven Equality Goals (repealing “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”) can only be achieved at the federal level. Therefore, at the state level, the maximum score is 6.

ANALYSIS (50 states + District of Columbia):

* Half of the states satisfy none or just one of the 6 Equality Goals that are required to ensure that LGBTQ people have the same legal protections as everyone else.

* No state offers full legal equality. California would have been the first state offering full equality if it were not for the veto of marriage equality legislation by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* Only two states (California and New Jersey) achieve 5 of the 6 Equality Goals.

* Massachusetts scores only 4.0 despite that if offers marriage equality. This is because it falls short in transgender protections in hate crimes, non discrimination, anti-bullying, and providing new birth certificates.

* Passing federal legislation on an Equality Goal would increase every state score by 1.

The scores range from California’s high of 5.5 (Yay!) to the shameful low of 0.5 shared by Idaho, Mississippi and Ohio. Click here to see the chart and find out what your state’s score is!

 

Hate Hurts.

Tuesday, April 15th, 2008

That’s the simple yet critical lesson of this video . Please be warned that this piece contains some adult language and brief violence.

 

Expelled Exposed!

Thursday, April 10th, 2008

Expelled Exposed

On April 15th the National Center for Science Education will be posting their full response to Ben Stein’s Expelled. In the meantime they’ve provided a handy list of resources for us including reviews and news coverage of Expelled, and other useful information. For future reference I’ve included a permanent link to this on the sidebar under “Helpful Links”.

 

Separation of Church and Military Still a Problem.

Sunday, April 6th, 2008

You may recall that I previously wrote about the ongoing problem in the US military with persistent Christian evangelism and bigotry toward those of other faiths, or of no faith. Recent news indicates that the trend continues, sadly. Spc. Jeremy Hall, the atheist who filed a religious discrimination lawsuit, has recently alleged that he has been threatened as a result.

Spc. Jeremy Hall filed a formal statement Wednesday with the Army. He says he overheard a conversation between two sergeants in his platoon and one wanted to “bust Hall in the mouth.”
Hall says he faces the animosity because he is an atheist and is suing the Department of Defense. He alleges it permits a culture that pushes fundamentalist Christianity.

He says he does not feel safe his unit.

Apparently Freedom of Religion, particularly in the military only applies to Evangelical Christians. Woe to non-conformists.

Now, from Newsweek:

The little book, with the camouflage cover, is everywhere. There are more than 50,000 copies with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s on military bases across America. It’s in the homes of military families, who are praying their dear ones come home. It’s circulating at the Pentagon. Even the president has allegedly read it. “An aide to President Bush called me and said, ‘Henry, I think you’d like to know that the president is on his face before God every morning, and he’s using your [book]’,” its author told NEWSWEEK. The author is Henry Blackaby, a 72-year-old Canadian minister who is largely unknown outside Christian circles and who wrote the book together with his son Richard more than a decade ago. The book is the ever popular guide to prayer called “Experiencing God Day by Day.”

The Blackabys had already written and published the devotional when Henry was invited to speak in 2005 before a group of U.S. military chaplains. The chaplains were so inspired by Blackaby’s talk, the story goes, that they asked for copies of “Experiencing God Day by Day” to give to the men and women in the Army. Blackaby took the request to heart: he tapped some of his friends in the business world, received $176,000 in donations, redesigned the cover to match the Army’s camouflage uniforms and, with the help of his publisher, printed 100,000 copies to be distributed to the Army free of charge. …..

Military bases are flooded with religious literature, Christian literature in particular, and “Experiencing God Day by Day” is notable mostly for its serious tone and its orthodox approach to evangelical Christian theology. The book presents a daily verse from Scripture and a commentary on that verse; its intention is to help readers keep God ever present in their minds……The devotional is also a deeply evangelical text, and as such holds Christianity above other religions. “If you did not grow up in a Christian home,” reads the entry for June 10, “you can decide, as Joshua did, to reject your heritage of unbelief and begin a generation that serves the Lord.”

There would not seem, on the face of it, to be much of a problem with a group of private citizens sending a Christian prayer book abroad to lonely and spiritually hungry men and women who are, for the most part, Christian. But if you look closely at the “Experiencing God” phenomenon, says Jeff Sharlet, there is. Sharlet is a journalist who has been covering the Christian right for many years and is author of “The Family,” a forthcoming book about fundamentalist elites in America. “The military stands for our democratic nation, not for any religion,” he says. The ubiquity of this devotional “creates the appearance that this is an approved religion, that it’s favored by the state.” Not only is such an appearance isolating for military men and women who happen to not be evangelical—even mainline Protestants on military bases say they can feel marginalized, Sharlet says—but it also continues to create the impression abroad that the United States is engaged in a holy war. One man’s comfort is another man’s crusade, and such is the sad state of the world.

I find it disgusting, particularly considering the evangelical slant of the book. It’s obviously designed to recruit new Christians in addition to offering reading material to existing ones. Would the military allow books intended to proselytize for other religions, for atheism, etc? If not, then why are they allowing books evangelizing for Christianity and for one form in particular? This is wrong on so many levels.

Now from TheReporter.com :

What do the U.S. military and Christianity have in common? Nothing, if Mikey Weinstein has his way.

Weinstein is the founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundation, a nonprofit organization that seeks to resurrect what he believes is the crumbling wall between church and state in the military.

Specifically, Weinstein believes that a minority Christian viewpoint - one that seeks to turn the military into a Christian force - is infiltrating the ranks at all levels. If they succeed, he says, their beliefs could be forced onto people around the world and here at home.

As Weinstein says it: “We’re a Tiger Woods’ putt away from becoming the United Fundamentalist Christian States of America, brought to you by the faith-based Department of Defense and its Pentacostalagon.”

…..

It’s a cause that came to him four years ago, in the form of a conversation with his younger son, who at the time was a sophomore at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado. His son complained about being unduly pressured by other cadets and academy leaders to give up his Jewish faith and become a Christian.

Weinstein, a 1977 Air Force academy graduate who served in Judge Advocate General Corps for 10 years and also did a stint in the Reagan White House, said he’d look into it. He thought it could be resolved with a few phone calls.

But as he probed, he began to see evidence of what seemed to be U.S.-sanctioned proseltyzation not only at the academy, but throughout the Air Force and in all branches of the military. Locally, he said he’s event received complaints from Travis Air Force Base, though he would not detail them.

Now the Military Religious Freedom Foundation has been in contact with more than 7,500 active-duty military members with similar complaints. Weinstein estimates that “96 percent” of those complaints come from other Christians.

“We’re at war, with the fundamentalist Christians pitted against the nonfundamentalist Christian brothers and sisters,” he says. “This is a national security threat internally every bit as much as that which is now challenging our country externally by a resurgent Taliban and al Qaida.”

The threat isn’t just to individual service members’ ability to practice their chosen faith - or nonfaith, as in the case of an avowed atheist whose opportunity for a promotional interview was rescinded, allegedly because he declined to participate in Christian prayers, according to a lawsuit recently filed by the foundation.

And it’s not just that “combat troops refusing to accept their commanders’ biblical world view are sent on more dangerous assignments,” or that “commanders are censoring movies,” so that troops are having trouble obtaining “Lord of the Rings” or Harry Potter DVDs, as Weinstein has been told by service members.

So much for the claim that atheists and other religious minorities aren’t actually put in harm’s way by the discrimination they experience.

The threat to national security comes when American Humvees are “driven through Iraqi cities playing, in Arabic, Rick Warren’s “The Purpose Driven Life,” or when company commanders are allowed to hand out tracts in Iraq depicting Christians going to heaven and Muslims going to hell, as alleged by a soldier who contacted Weinstein. Such actions serve to fuel the belief in Muslim countries that they are engaged in another holy war, and that this time, the Christian crusade is being led by the U.S. military.

But I thought they hated us for our freedoms. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the hostile religious behavior of the occupying forces. (Of course when Christian missionaries behave in similar ways and face violent backlash they call it “persecution” rather than face the reality that antagonistic behavior has repercussions.)

Needless to say, the US Military has far to go in bringing its Evangelical strain under control and making the environment safe and equal for people of all beliefs and non-beliefs. Fortunately the MRFF seems to be launching a formidable counterattack on the religious bullies. It will be worth keeping an eye on the situation to see how it pans out.

 

Wal-Mart Stinks.

Friday, April 4th, 2008

Yes, they stink for endless reasons, such as the way they’re anti-union, pay their employees sub-par wages , peddle cheesy Chinese goods,put whole towns out of business through sleazy business practices, etc. But that’s not the topic of this post; Debbie Shank is.

Debbie Shank breaks down in tears every time she’s told that her 18-year-old son, Jeremy, was killed in Iraq.

The 52-year-old mother of three attended her son’s funeral, but she continues to ask how he’s doing. When her family reminds her that he’s dead, she weeps as if hearing the news for the first time.

Shank suffered severe brain damage after a traffic accident nearly eight years ago that robbed her of much of her short-term memory and left her in a wheelchair and living in a nursing home.

It was the beginning of a series of battles — both personal and legal — that loomed for Shank and her family. One of their biggest was with Wal-Mart’s health plan.

Eight years ago, Shank was stocking shelves for the retail giant and signed up for Wal-Mart’s health and benefits plan.

Two years after the accident, Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank’s long-term care.

Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank’s medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family’s trust.

The Shanks didn’t notice in the fine print of Wal-Mart’s health plan policy that the company has the right to recoup medical expenses if an employee collects damages in a lawsuit.

The family’s attorney, Maurice Graham, said he informed Wal-Mart about the settlement and believed the Shanks would be allowed to keep the money.

 

 

“We assumed after three years, they [Wal-Mart] had made a decision to let Debbie Shank use this money for what it was intended to,” Graham said.

…..

In 2007, the retail giant reported net sales in the third quarter of $90 billion.

…..

The family’s situation is so dire that last year Jim Shank divorced Debbie, so she could receive more money from Medicaid.

Jim Shank, 54, is recovering from prostate cancer, works two jobs and struggles to pay the bills. He’s afraid he won’t be able to send their youngest son to college and pay for his and Debbie’s care.

“Who needs the money more? A disabled lady in a wheelchair with no future, whatsoever, or does Wal-Mart need $90 billion, plus $200,000?” he asked.

…..

 

Of course after all of the negative media publicity Wal-Mart changed its mind and decided it wouldn’t be such a good idea to exploit Deborah Shank to recoup their health insurance payout. The power of the press was on the victim’s side this time and Deborah Shank will be able to keep her small settlement (which is, from what I’ve read, barely over $400,000 after legal expenses and other fees).