Virginia Gentles v. Target Corporation

This suit was filed 1/22/15 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case #BC570020) and is comprised of 4 Counts: Read the 9 page suit at: http://gentlesvtarget.blogspot.com/

1) False Imprisonment
2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3) Negligence
4 Wrongful Death

A Lt . for the Pasadena PD stated that there were NO ALLEGATIONS of theft against Mr. Gentles. This as reported in the Pasadena Weekly by Staff Reporter Andre Coleman who interviewed the Lt.

Mr. Gentles suffered from Aspbergers.

Here are some extracts from the Virginia Gentles v. Target Corporation suit which is carried in full at http://gentlesvtarget.blogspot…, some of this is already familiar to you but other info may not be:

* Mr. Graham Gentles worked at Defendant’s Pasadena store. Mr. Gentles’ job title was Cashier.

* On July 15, 2014, at about 1:50 pm, Mr. Gentles arrived at the Pasadena Target store prior to the beginning of his shift which began 2:00 pm. Mr. Gentles typically arrived about 10 minutes early for work.

* When Mr. Gentles arrived at the front entrance on this date, he was met by police and Target store security personnel which included Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez.

* At the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez, the police grabbed Mr. Gentles at the front entrance, emptied his pockets, pulled his hat off his head, handcuffed him and then led him along with Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and Target security personnel from the front entrance in front of the registers, past guest services (where there are a lot of employees and customers) and then through the double doors to the AP2 office of Target’s Pasadena store.

* At the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez, Mr. Gentles was then forcibly detained by Target security personnel and the police in Target’s AP2 office where he was questioned. Some time later, Mr. Gentles was taken to a police car and then taken to the police department.

* Plaintiff is informed and believe that Mr. Gentles was never charged with any crime and was released the same day by the police.
* Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants Mims and Godinez were acting pursuant to Target policy in instigating Mr. Gentles’ arrest and subjecting him to the Walk of Shame.

* Plaintiff’s imprisonment at the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and was part of a Target’s policy known as “Walk of Shame”. The Walk of Shame is a Target policy to purposefully cause shame, embarrassment and emotional distress to any Target employee who is suspected of stealing from Target Corporation. The policy consists of suspected employees being arrested and paraded in hand-cuffs through the Target store in full view of co-workers and store customers.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Walk of Shame has happened on numerous occasions to Target employees suspected of stealing from Target.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that Target initiated an investigation of Mr. Gentles several months before his arrest related to a verbal altercation that Mr. Gentles had with another Target co-worker at a bar outside of work hours.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that allegations made by this other co-worker led Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and Target security personnel to instigate the arrest and detention of Mr. Gentles and to subject him to the Walk of Shame.
* Mr. Gentles committed suicide on July 18, 2014, three days after his arrest was instigated by Defendants Mims and Godinez and Mr. Gentles being subjected to the “Walk of Shame” at the Pasadena store.

* Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Gentles.

* Defendants did not have any reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Gentles had committed a crime at any Target store at the time that its security personnel instigated the arrest of Mr. Gentles.

* Defendants and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, and each of them, had the duty to exercise ordinary care towards the decedent Graham Gentles and should have known that subjecting Mr. Gentles to false imprisonment would foreseeably cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress and that it is foreseeable that some individuals who experience severe emotional distress will attempt suicide.

———————————————————————-
Also take a look at: http://targetfiling.blogspot.c… and there is a thread with 130 comments on the break room at http://www.thebreakroom.org/in…

Virginia Gentles v. Target Corporation

This suit was filed 1/22/15 in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles (Case #BC570020) and is comprised of 4 Counts:

1) False Imprisonment
2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
3) Negligence
4 Wrongful Death
Here are some extracts from the Virginia Gentles v. Target Corporation suit which is carried in full at http://gentlesvtarget.blogspot…, some of this is already familiar to you but other info may not be:

* Mr. Graham Gentles worked at Defendant’s Pasadena store. Mr. Gentles’ job title was Cashier.

* On July 15, 2014, at about 1:50 pm, Mr. Gentles arrived at the Pasadena Target store prior to the beginning of his shift which began 2:00 pm. Mr. Gentles typically arrived about 10 minutes early for work.

* When Mr. Gentles arrived at the front entrance on this date, he was met by police and Target store security personnel which included Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez.

* At the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez, the police grabbed Mr. Gentles at the front entrance, emptied his pockets, pulled his hat off his head, handcuffed him and then led him along with Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and Target security personnel from the front entrance in front of the registers, past guest services (where there are a lot of employees and customers) and then through the double doors to the AP2 office of Target’s Pasadena store.

* At the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez, Mr. Gentles was then forcibly detained by Target security personnel and the police in Target’s AP2 office where he was questioned. Some time later, Mr. Gentles was taken to a police car and then taken to the police department.

* Plaintiff is informed and believe that Mr. Gentles was never charged with any crime and was released the same day by the police.
* Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants Mims and Godinez were acting pursuant to Target policy in instigating Mr. Gentles’ arrest and subjecting him to the Walk of Shame.

* Plaintiff’s imprisonment at the direction of Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and was part of a Target’s policy known as “Walk of Shame”. The Walk of Shame is a Target policy to purposefully cause shame, embarrassment and emotional distress to any Target employee who is suspected of stealing from Target Corporation. The policy consists of suspected employees being arrested and paraded in hand-cuffs through the Target store in full view of co-workers and store customers.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Walk of Shame has happened on numerous occasions to Target employees suspected of stealing from Target.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that Target initiated an investigation of Mr. Gentles several months before his arrest related to a verbal altercation that Mr. Gentles had with another Target co-worker at a bar outside of work hours.

* Plaintiff is informed and believes that allegations made by this other co-worker led Defendants Anthony Mims and Charles Godinez and Target security personnel to instigate the arrest and detention of Mr. Gentles and to subject him to the Walk of Shame.
* Mr. Gentles committed suicide on July 18, 2014, three days after his arrest was instigated by Defendants Mims and Godinez and Mr. Gentles being subjected to the “Walk of Shame” at the Pasadena store.

* Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to Mr. Gentles.

* Defendants did not have any reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Gentles had committed a crime at any Target store at the time that its security personnel instigated the arrest of Mr. Gentles.

* Defendants and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, and each of them, had the duty to exercise ordinary care towards the decedent Graham Gentles and should have known that subjecting Mr. Gentles to false imprisonment would foreseeably cause Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress and that it is foreseeable that some individuals who experience severe emotional distress will attempt suicide.

———————————————————————-
Also take a look at: http://targetfiling.blogspot.c… and there is a thread with 130 comments on the break room at http://www.thebreakroom.org/in…

Further info at:  targetfiling.blogspot.com
The case of Virginia Gentles v. Target Corp (BC 570020) was filed 1/22/15 regarding a July 2014 incident where actions by Target employees at their Pasadena store subsequently resuolted in the suicide of a discharged Target cashier.

While the litigation starts in the ‘Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles’ it will be moved to the 9th Circuit of the U.S. District Court due to diversity of citizenship as Target HQ is in Minnesota.  The 9th Circuit consists of 7 Western States and so far this year 9 suits involving Target have been filed, last year there were 105.

When I pull the filing from the Federal court site I will add it to my blog.  As I have done with other suits, I will add a separate blog to contain the filing as it will be far to large to add to this site.

The current claim is for unspecified monetary damages and alleged in part:
Count 1 – False Imprisonment
Count 2 – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Count 3 – Negligence

Target is frequently sued and they do not settle cases, they let them all go to trial.  Some they win some they lose.  When they lose they appeal.  These cases drag on for years and this will be no exception.

======================================================

UPDATE:

The incident continues to be reported, usually the original story is simply quoted but ABC Eyewitness News 7 in LA has a bit more info than most and they say in part:

“He said, ‘Mom, I’ve never stolen,'” Virginia Gentles recalled. “He said, ‘They did the walk of shame, I had to do the walk of shame. But they only do that when people steal and I’ve never stolen a thing.'”

The complaint alleges that an argument between Graham Gentles and a coworker at a bar outside of work hours may have prompted the incident. The suit says it’s believed that allegations made by the coworker led to store management calling for Gentles’ arrest and “walk of shame.”

According to the complaint, the so-called “walk of shame” has happened on numerous occasions to employees who were suspected of stealing.

“One of the primary purposes of this lawsuit is that Target stops the policy immediately [and] recognizes the harm that it could do,” said McNicholas. 

See their full report at:
http://abc7.com/news/lawsuit-pasadena-target-employee-killed-self-after-being-shamed/488247/

TARGET SUCKS – FIND OUT WHY
and other Target information at:

http://targetfiling.blogspot.com/

Don’t forget to look at these Target sites:

http://targetpayandbenefits.blogspot.com

http://beckfordvtarget.blogspot.com/

http://diaz-target.blogspot.com/

http://targetccguidelines.blogspot.com/

http://targetguidelines.blogspot.com/

http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com/

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/target-corp-v-doe

http://targetstoressucks.blogspot.com/

http://www.ihatetarget.net/

Here are some other Tarbutt videos for those who have nothing better to do:
Target Shoplifter tackled:

Falls/Arrests 7 min:

Shoplifting 42 seconds:

Target Crime Lab, Mn. (ABC)

7 min of shoplifting and guy gets away with it:

Shopping Cart Screw Up:

Loading Up at Tarbutt Shoplifting Arrest:

Dancing LODs:

MORE FYI:

7 fights 2 accidents

How to remove security tags

How to remove ink tags (Sensormatic)

Here is what Target tells their Calif. employees about Hispanic workers and how to react to them in their distribution warehouses with a document titled: ‘Organization Effectiveness, Employee and Labor Relations Multi-Cultural Tips,’

Local on air media have said about it: ‘unbelievably ridiculous memo’
This Target document instructs managers to note differences among Hispanic employees, and states the following:

“a. Food: not everyone eats tacos and burritos;

“b. Music: not everyone dances to salsa;

“c. Dress: not everyone wears a sombrero;

“d. Mexicans (lower education level, some may be undocumented);

“e. Cubans (Political refugees, legal status, higher education level); and

“f. They may say ‘OK, OK’ and pretend to understand, when they do not, just to save face.”

For full press reports on this July suit see: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com

I have been adding some new posts to my main Target Sucks blog at: http://targetfiling.blogspot.com,  this wordpress site is very much a secondary site for my info. The above blog has about 250 Tarbutt posts, you should take a look and book mark it. There are also other sites with direct links and you can keep up with other T. things.

Keep in mind that I am looking for additional Target info to post, hope some T AP type will send me a new copy of their AP Directives. Who knows maybe T will sue me again!

Here is another T sites: http://targetapdirectives2006.blogspot.com/, http://beckfordvtarget.blogspot.com/ , http://diaz-target.blogspot.com, so take a look at these sites.

10/20/10
Are you keeping up with this case?
Marjorie Ann Diaz v. Target Corporation
see http://www.targetfiling.blogspot.com

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. The Plaintiff sues on the following causes:

(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

Richard Quintilone needs to register additional current or former California Target employees for this civil suit. If you would like to be included or just want additional information please email info@quintlaw.com.

This is a long and important case, too long to go into a summary here, if you want more info take a look at this blog site for details: http://diaz-target.blogspot.com/

==============================================

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARJORIE ANN DIAZ, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff,

vs.

TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants.

No. 8:10-CV-01103 AG (MLGx)

PLAINTIFF MARJORIE ANN DIAZ’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
[Filed Concurrently with the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities,
Putative Class Member and Manager
Declarations, Declaration of Richard E.
Quintilone II, Esq. and Exhibits Thereto]

Judge: Hon. Andrew I. Guilford
Date: November 29, 2010
Time: 10:00 AM
Courtroom: 10D, 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana, CA

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Please take notice that on November 29, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, in Courtroom 10 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Plaintiff Marjorie Ann Diaz will move for an order granting class certification.

This motion will be based on this Notice of Motion; the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities; Putative Class Member and Manager Declarations;
Declaration of Richard E. Quintilone II Esq. exhibits thereto; additional Exhibits; and on such other oral and documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the hearing of the Motion.

Date: October 19, 2010 QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
______________________________
RICHARD E. QUINTILONE II,
Attorney for Plaintiff MARJORIE ANN DIAZ

===========================================

Below is a bit of the 3 page Declaration of Katerra Davis, found on the other referenced blog site:

3. During the 2009 time frame, I attended a weekly training that dealt with the issue of how to get the Target Team Members to wear the red shirts and khaki pants. We were trying to force Team Members to wear the red shirts and khaki pants without actually instructing them that these were “uniforms.”

4. At this meeting, Target Corporate issued written directive and a training statement that told us what we were supposed to say to Team Members in order to persuade them to wear the red shirts and khaki pants, and how to deal with any negativity from team members regarding the uniforms.

5. The statement from Target Corporate regarding the red shirts and khaki pants told us to tell team members about the importance of “being a team player” and that when they are wearing the team colors, they are showing support for the team and it helps to build team morale. The true reason for these statements was to manipulate the team members into wearing the red shirts and khaki pants by making them feel as though they were not part of the Target team if they did not cooperate with the instructions regarding clothing.

6. Pursuant to Target’s Corporate company policy, also called a Training publication, we were not allowed to actually “tell” the team members that they “had” to wear the red shirts and khaki pants, and so this training and statement was to show us how to work around that rule, which I now understand is the law. We were to do that by making team members feel as though they didn’t have the choice not to wear. . .

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.