TARGET CASHIER FIRED THEN KILLS HIMSELF = NEW INFO HERE FYI
February 9, 2015
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
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.