Walmart stores Sams Club racism, discrimination, willing to circumvent discrimination laws of the PHRC in Pa Dickson City, Pennsylvania

Anyone else notice that Mr. Rik likes to put up pictures of little boys on his posts? Hmmm..... It seems like the legacy of Michael Jackson is alive and well in his #1 fan.

He won his case, he got $100.

WHY are you so upset???

Wahhhhh...

He is the man. He won his case, he stated the facts.  Sounds like a lot of little boys can't handle it. - Mr. Dik, (oops, I mean, Mr. Rik)

Mr. Rik, once again you've proven to the world that you are an uber-moron. Read that report again, genius. He got $100. Do you honestly think a concrete case of racial harrassment would generate a payout of $100? No, obviously not. It would be at least in the thousands. After all, a $100 fine to a company the size of Walmart is nothing. Now, there's not enough detail in the report on what that money was for (court costs, parking and/or food reimbursment, whatever), but I'm d**n sure it wasn't to penalize Walmart for losing this case.

Think before you speak.  

You are throwing around legal terms "trying" to make your point.  There is too much "lawyer speak" for you to be some person who just got upset that someone called you a few names, which after all of these posts we don't even know what was said. 

My guess is that either you watch too much Court TV or you are a 1st Year Law Student who taken classes dealing with the basics of law.  But with your comments such as Walmart should have told you that you were suing them in the wrong court, you don't have a lot of legal background.  I also think you may have recently taken classes on racism and/or discrimination.  You hear reports occasionally where Medical Students all of the sudden think they are coming down with the exact same diseases that they are learning about.   This may be happening here where you all of the sudden think that everything you talk about in class is happening to you and the entire world is discriminating against you.

Using legal terms does not automatically make your "case" more believable, writing it in such a way to where you are the 3rd person doesn't make your "case" more believable.  The entire situation that started this just seems too "set up" and was probably not as "friendly" as you are trying to get people to think it was.

Was that a reason for this person to throw "racist taunts" at you?  On the surface of course not, but here is a couple of terms you haven't used yet.

"Provocation" - In both your examples neither person was really provoked to do what they did.  It is not like you were just walking down the street and this guy started throwing insults at you.  It could be seen that you provoked him into saying these things when you "bumped" him. 

This also brings up another term "Mitigating Circumstances".  Depending on the "bump" and history you have with this person it may not excuse the actions, but it may explain them and thus explain why a lesser "penalty" was warranted.

He is the man.

He won his case, he stated the facts.  Sounds like a lot of little boys can't handle it.

Roosevelt,

Yea, so what. Be a man. The nine year old boy across the street is more of a man than you.

Roosevelt,

First off, your last response was WAAAAAAY too long. You could've easily summarized that into a few sentences.

Second, even if the story happened as you described it (which I doubt for the reasons I stated before), it seems to me that you're really going out of your way to go after Walmart. Why is that? So someone used a racial slur in front of you; big deal. I've had black people hurl racial insults at me before and I just ignore them. So, why can't you do the same thing? Bottom line: I think you're trying to score some quick cash by playing the race card.

To: I am the law,
Allow me to apologize for not replying earlier. Your ad gave me a sense of redundency to other misplaced banner. This will be my final rebuttal.

I'm not sure whether your title "I am the law" suggest colloquialism, an attempt to be facetious, or maybe you are just a police officer or a security guard, but I will make this short and try not to write over your head. Here goes...

What is the purpose of a "title"? A title represents "topic". Now, what is the topic? The topic is "Walmart is willing to circumvent Pa rules of law pertaining to discrimination. What is circumvent? Circumvent is to "intentionally" go around; to avoid; to bypass.

Now, let us go back to the beginning. I filed a "vicarious liability" case in a magisterial court. Walmart "must" show up in court, or they lose. However, Walmart does not have to allow a case it truly believes to be a discrimination case to be discussed in a magisterial court because Walmart is aware discrimination cases are for the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. Walmart can request the case be dismissed due to "lack of subject matter". 

What is "lack of subject matter"? Lack of subject matter means that there is no matter which has been bought before this court which may be discussed. Or, it may suggest this Court has no business presiding over this particular type of case. It's like discussing bankruptcy cases in a magisterial court. However, there is no attorney for the plaintiff so Walmart attempts to defend. Walmart loses. 

This is the first sign of "willing to circumvent" a Pennsylvania rule of law a corporation is aware of. Now...Understand, it is not always illegal to circumvent rules of law in civil court. If you can get away with it, around it and win, that is good news for that corporation. You take advantage of your opponents ignorance of certains rules of law and attempt to make it work in your favor.

The good lawyer work by Walmart was to continue the argument through all courts (magisterial, county, then district) based on "vicarious liability". Then, in the end after the passing of 180 days, state as a defense "this was a case of discrimination" and discrimination cases are to be filed within 180 days, over 100 miles away, in Harrisburg, Pa with the PHRC.

I have found many Pa citizens not to be aware of the PHRC and the 180 day statute of limitations (180 days time limit for filing a discrimination case).

CASE IN POINT: WALMART IS WILLING TO CIRCUMVENT PA DISCRIMINATION RULES OF LAW

So, when you ask something like..."So...what do you mean by friendly bump", I understand you are lost, dumbfounded and off track from the true undertstanding of the topic "Walmart is willing to circumvent Pa discrimination rules of law". Dumbfounded does not mean I believe you to be dumb. It means perplexed.

Asinine questions: Here are 2 examples (civil and criminal)
 
A) Civil (tort) scenario: Bob, a mechanic, works on a car that has a transmission warranty. The work required would only pay Bob $600. Bob does not get permission from the warranty company to do repairs. Instead, he repairs the vehicle and demands $2,000 from owner. Sam, the owner of the vehicle contacts the warranty company and finds he has lost his warranty because of the unapproved work.  Sam throws racist remarks at the mechanic and demands his vehicle returned, without paying $2,000. Asinine question: So...why did the owner throw the racist taunts? (This is a contracts case and "contracts" has Rules of Law).

B) Criminal scenario: Art, a teenager, attempts to run from the police after stealing a $3 item from a grocery store. Art stops, picks up a rock and throws it at the police. The police shoot Art in the head, killing Art instantly. The police win in court. Asinise question: So, why did Art throw the rock? (This is a petty theft case and "theft" has Rules of Law)

Conclusion: If you expect you have been discriminated against, contact the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. 

Ok, obviously I wasn't there, but this report is a little too "neat".

First off, what is a "friendly bump"? 99.9999% of the population wouldn't freak out like the Walmart employee did if someone bumped into them by accident. My guess is, is that you did something else to provoke the employee. I'm not saying it's appropriate to spout out racist remarks, but something doesn't seem right about the story.

Second, companies are under no legal obligation to tell the "victim" what their disciplinary steps were against the employee. I'm sure Walmart doesn't want to get drug into a lawsuit, so, I'm pretty confident they did something about the situation.

Third, you seem to be going to great lengths to persue Walmart. It doesn't sound right to me that someone would disrupt their own lives this much just to get back at someone for making a comment.

Again, I wasn't there, but I'm sure there's more to this. 

Let us all put this race card issue in a trunk, packed away in the attic where it belongs. It's also confusing. I entered an establishment going under renovations, gave a bump to an employee I was familiar with requesting direction to a department. The employee began and ended with racist taunts. After reasonable time of not hearing from management, I contacted corporate, then request the magistrate hold the company liable for the remarks (very simply; vicariously liability). It was the establishment that suggested the PHRC. Therefore, I have no idea where I pulled a race card. The employee started the trek and the establishment took us down that road suggesting the PHRC. As a student of law I simply made them pay for that ride in legal fees, for 3 years. They finally offered to double the magistrates decision and fired the employee. (If I accepted the $200, I could not utilize my experience with Walmart and discuss the PHRC. Wasn't worth $200).   

Discrimination affects all and many (African Americans, Caucasians, Asians, Handicap, elderly, etc.) Understand, any of us may enter an establishment in Pa and be confronted negatively and differently for any reason. If you ever come to a point in which you want an attorney to represent you in court, you will "attempt" to hire an attorney. Now, this does not mean you will "get" an attorney. Attorneys are not guaranteed in tort cases. And, not only is it not easy to afford an attorney, many attorneys will turn you down if there's not enough financial gain for them.

Sometimes you have to stand for something or sit and remain silent. The choice is yours. There will be people that dont like you for your comments. I have been called all sorts of terms such as idiot, liar, race card user, etc. But guess what. Its all cool. I never threw negative taunts or terms back and never will. If I only reach 1 person out of 1,000, I'm content. If you "feel" you've been discriminated against, our tax dollars have paid for a commission to answer all your questions at no cost. Understand, its not necessary that you truly were discriminated against, but feel that you have been. The legal definition of discrimination is not simple. The PHRC will explain your situation in legal terms. Their locations are in Harrisburg, Philadelphia and Pittsburg, Pa

Bravo axxx... bravo regarding this race card issue!

Now, let's take another perspective. The commission is not a court of law. I would place it closer to being an ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution). Within the PHRC, no one has to be sued or represented by attorneys . The PHRC is there to attempt to resolve issues outside the courts. Now, lets suppose the magistrate realized he was not to preside over this case and that it was a case for the comission. I could accept a "dismissal without prejudice" before $100. I would have filed with the commission and all parties would have met, attempting to reach a resolution. Not given the chance, I cannot state how I would have actually sided, but I would have been open minded.

NOTE: There was no attorney representing me. I represented pro se. Walmart paid more in the long run for attorney fees because they went from magisterial court, dragged the case from county court, then to district court. We were in court for 3 years. Didn't cost me much representing pro se...just time, patients and I've been educated regarding Pa discrimination laws and the PHRC. Now, I'm here to make others aware. Law firms may not offer help, but we have the commission.

Contact the PHRC for help and guidance.

NOTE: Duke v. Walmart; The initial women were probably discriminated against, but questionable legal manuevers (class actions) cost in the end. Now they must go one on one or retreat.

I think I'm sold.  Listening to the OP - I can tell that he is not some idiot hoping to extract $2000 from walmart.  He could probably make more than $2000 pretty easily in the time he has spent on this case.  I think he was just trying to force someone at walmart to listen to him. The only thing I object to is saying that an employee should be fired for any racist insults regardless of the situation.  Blanket rules like that are just opening the door for problematic outcomes.  Every situation needs to be evaluated on its own merits.  We had an employee get his hand slammed in a car trunk (accident) by a co-worker.  In shock/pain he said some pretty bad things..not racial but equally not nice types of things.  Under any reasonable standard he gets a pass on just about anything he says during the 30 seconds after this accident, now if he walked up to the person who slammed the trunk the following day and said the same things, itwould be a problem.  In the OPs situation, assuming it is as described, the employee should have been fired.  As a society, we don't want people playing the "race card" to extort people or companies who are more or less innocet of racist intent.  We also need to do everything we can to prevent truely racist actions by people or companies.    I think it is interesting that so many posts just assume that this is "race card", I think the people who are making that assumption are just as guilty as the people who assume that every time somthing is not going their way it is a result of racism.  It really is the same - attributing a motive (either that someone is racist or that somoen is playing the race card)to a person when you don't really know what the motive is. We should try for an environment where we call BS on genuinely racist behavior - and where we call BS on "race card" type of stuff - and where we atleast try to do our best to see things for what they are.  Every time someone shouts racism we shouldn't automatically think "race card" and we shouldn't automatically think that whoever is being accused is a racist.  We also need to call out racists regardless of their race.  These days most of the racism that I see (especially in media) is not FROM white people it is directed AT white people - and I think that contributes to an environment where so many people respond with anger towards minority victims of minor racial incidents.  I think white people don't have the same history with regard to being subjects of racism, and don't care as much when people from other groups say things that are racist towards whites.  I think for white people (like myself) we don't really care, but we remember, and when we hear about a minority victim of a minor racial incident "making a stink" over it we can't help but to wonder why he can't just blow it off like we did when the situation was reversed.  We should be mindful of the historical perspective -  no American alive today has ever owned a slave, or been a slave, but we should be mindful that just because we don't really see racist remarks agains whites as a big deal - the situation should not be seen as "just as bad." as racism directed at other groups.  Minorities also have to understand and move forward by combating (rather than contributing to) the double standard - because as long as a double standard exists it is pretty hard to support a minority victim of a racial incident when similar behavior is directed at whites in public, in the media etc and no one (including whites) seem to really care.  Anyway thats my $.02 and why I think there are so many "cry baby" and "race card" comments here.

Having wasted the time reading this rubbish I felt the need to reply. This story of yours is so full of holes big enough you could drive a truck through. Others have covered some. Where's the witness' to this racial attack you were so broken up about at? If the employee was verbaly attacking you so loud, wouldn't someone other than you have heard it? Maybe the store you were in was empty -not. Why are you leaving out the parts about what you said? Why didn't you get the films from the camera that recorded it all. Don't bother to answer, it's clear you are a liar.

As to the time limits running out, I say serves you right. It's a travesty when people like you exploit the system the way you tried to. You are only on here crying because a real lawyer (even the ambulance chaser) you contacted told you to take a hike and you decided to pursue it yourself. You had a FOOL for a lawyer! Ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law, ask any judge or lawyer they'll tell you the same. You are only crying because it bit you in the a*s. Otherwise I/we never would have spent my last few minutes wasted here - by you. Take your race card and shove it or tell us the whole story, not just what fits your side so sweet.

You  are partially correct. However, you confuse the legal meaning of damages. I should have been clear. This was a vicarious liability case, requesting Walmart be held liable for the actions of all racist and discriminatory acts of its employees against consumers. Walmart agreed to argued on this. They lost. Not until after the passing of 180 days did Walmart suggest to the district court that this was a discrimination case for the PHRC. 

Not being aware of the PHRC, and only requesting a slap of $2,000.00, I filed with the magisterial court. If it was about the money, a request of $20,000.00+ would have been filed in Lackawanna County Court, or the District Court.

There was "no" monetary damages suffered. When suing a corporation, suggesting vicarious liability, punitive damages may be requested. Punitive damages request the Court punish the corporation for the actions of its employees. You are right. It could have been $1. This doesn't mean I am wrong by being offended, particularly after what was done at Walmart and the store manager admiiting it occurred, but was "just acceptable jokes".

It is understood how many may think publicly spewing insulting, racist taunts in Walmart, by a Walmart employee is only worthy of $1, but you may feel different when its your family member or other loved ones. You may tell your family member to take the $1, or $100. You may even tell them to leave Walmart alone. We have traveled different avenues and I may insult easier than you. The employee should have been terminated. Immediately! The untraceable letters from corporate didn't help. Sorry you don't agree and think $1 would be reasonable. It may be normal, but this doesn't suggest it is reasonable.

To request your opponent to guide you legally in a court proceeding is asinine. You must come to understand the purpose of law, rules and proceedures. The PHRC was created for a specific purpose. This saves money, time and tax payer dollars. The commission was not created as a forum to use "only if you can find them". Within the State of Pa, discrimination cases "must" be filed with the PHRC. It's very simple. Its the law. Walmart knew the law. The magistrate should have been aware of the law. Many citizens "are not aware" of this law which just came into effect in the 50's.

Now, you, I and other readers are aware. Its not asking your opponent for guidance. It's simply following the law. You don't file in an appeals court before filing in a county court. You don't file in a federal court, then appeal to a lower court. You don't discuss discrimination in any court before filing with the commission. ITS PA LAW! It's that simple. Now you know, now I know, now others know.

You may lose on one side, but you gain knowledge on the other. Education is beautiful. Keep those comments coming.  

In 1954, Brown v. Board of Education established segregation in public schools as unconstitutional. In time it paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement. The PHRC created immediately thereafter was authorized to handle only cases regarding race, color, religion, ancestry, age, or nationality. However, since then it has broadened. 

Problems with the PHRC is that... a) many citizens are not aware of the purpose and/or existence of the commission, b) there are only three locations in the entire State of Pa to file a case, c) the citizens of Pa only have 180 days to become aware of the commission to have a case filed and heard, d) the commission is currently in need of funds and manpower. 

There are corporations which will practice inconspicuous discrimination (ie. against women, the elderly, race, handicap, etc.) and their attorneys will take advantage of weaknesses within the legal system. The main problem within my case against Walmart was not with the employee. It was the handling (or failure to handle) actions of management and Walmart's Corporate Office in Bentonville, AR.

When we open establishments, there are possibilities we will hire those who hate others due to race, age, religion, etc. The problem comes when management decides these attacks are "acceptable jokes". Walmart's corporate office actually sent 2 letters with statements that their own attorney would not justify after stating (under oath) that no one was ever in contact, or had contact with the Global Ethics Office, or other corporate offices. And, corporate sent the letters of promising to take action against thoses involved with "no last name", "no position held", and "no signature" of the author which makes the letters untraceable. This was not the acts of management. THIS WAS THE CORPORATE OFFICE! 

The "main" problem is not in the employees, but in its management, its executive team and corporate offices. 

If you, the reader, do not get anything from all this, whether readers want it or not, readers have been made aware of the existence of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission and the 180 days statute of limitations. And, know that some corporations are willing to circumvent rules of law when you are not aware.

You got me good with the "Quote" definition but, at least I was never fired from Walmart.

" Arguing the $100 settlement was a reaction to the judge agreeing Walmart was liable, but to spew racial insults at a person in public while working regarding the persons race, heritage, sex, age, handicap, etc is only worth 5 twenty dollar bills was an insult in itself."

  That means it is about the money.  You can't say it's not about the money, while simultaneously claiming that the judgement was worth more than $100.

   It's quite common in these cases for the award to be $1.   While the company may have been in the wrong, the judgement must reflect the plaintiffs actual damages (which are usually none, other than hurt feelings). 

   BTW, your assertion that Walmart's lawyers should have assisted you in choosing where to file is laughable.  If someone was suing you, would you help them?  That flies in the face of common sense.

To: Inspector,

Stay with us. Hang in there. Stick with the program. Reread, proof read, or ask for help.

THE RACIST WALMART EMPLOYEE WAS FINALLY FIRED. NOT ME, THE CONSUMER. Some years ago I did work for Walmart, but chose to leave after an injury in the receiving area. We ("we"...meaning Walmart Corp.) did part on good terms, but I won't accept racist taunts from anyone regardless of good/bad past relations. 

And, a "quote" is to repeat or copy the words of another; to cite. I do not  believe Mike Tyson ever said, "If you can't beat me, stay out the ring. Just run around it". He could have, but I do not believe he did.  

A convicted rapist and wife beater!  Keep talking, we now see why you were fired.  Lying and threats of violence don't make very good employees.  Try a job with less exposure to civilized people.

The PHRC was created for a specific purpose. The PHRC was created immediately following Brown v. Board of Education. The PHRC would keep discrimination cases from flooding the courts. We have legal systems. This is "law". It is an interesting legal move to remain silent if your challenger is not aware of a certain legal forum. It's like fighting Mike Tyson while he was 20 years old (If you know you can't win the fight, stay out of the ring. Keep running around it). 

We can save time, money and tax dollars exquesting the initial court to dismiss the case due to lack of subject matter (filed in wrong forum). Walmart took a chance of winning "in the wrong forum". They lost to someone who was not an attorney. After 180 days, Walmart was willing to mention the PHRC as a defense. Walmart was aware of the PHRC. The law states... "all discrimination cases go to the PHRC". Demand the magisterial court dismiss the case. Walmart stayed away from the PHRC probably because the witness admitted the racist remarks occurred and was aware of a possible loss. NOTE: Any negative, racist remarks made "by any employee", with witnesses, should bring immediate termination! 

NOT ABOUT THE MONEY: The magistrate handles cases up to $8,000. The $2,000 was requesting a slap on the wrist, asking the court to hold Walmart liable for the actions of its employees. Arguing the $100 settlement was a reaction to the judge agreeing Walmart was liable, but to spew racial insults at a person in public while working regarding the persons race, heritage, sex, age, handicap, etc is only worth 5 twenty dollar bills was an insult in itself. 

942 Reports today.

If everybody played fair and by the rules, nobody be upset right?

That's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.

Walmart is aware all discrimination cases go to Harrisburg, Pa but is willing to follow those who are not aware of the PHRC through wrong forums until the 180 days has past
- So you are saying that it is Walmarts responsibility to tell you that you are filing a suit against them in the wrong court? 

Race card or not that is a great testiment to the Entitlement mentality that some people have.  You now want the company(that you are suing) to tell you that you are suing them in the wrong court.  Why stop there?  Why not just force them to tell you how to win your case while you are at it, after all they have all of the high priced lawyers.  Heck who even needs the courts, just make every claim an automatic victory for the claimant and give them what ever they feel they are entitled to.

You don't happen to know anyone by the name of Charles in Alabama do you?

I'm not a big fan of anyone who tries to take money from a person or company who earned it.  That having been said, the employee should certainly have been aware that shouting racist remarkes at work is likely to be frowned upon.  I don't think anyone needs to pay the OP, but the employee should have been fired if what the OP says is true.  Is this "race card" ? Not sure.  If we assume everything occured exactly as reported - I guess we have to ask what would change if the employe was just shouting general non-racial insults.  Should the employee still have been fired?  I say yes.  But what about going to court and asserting  that the OP is "entitled" to $2,000? What is the basis for this "entitlement"?  Since the court concluded that it was a discimination case the assertion seems to have been that the racial nature of the incident is what the OP was suggesting "entitled" him to money.  If the guy really believes that he is entitled to some kind of payout as a result of this incident and thats what motivated him I'd call that "race card", if he was just super pissed because he wasn't getting the feeling that anyone cared that the employee did this and used the system to force Walmart to atleast pay attention to him - I say that is not "race card"  I doubt all of this is about $2,000, going to court etc sounds like a lot of work if the best case outcome is $2,000.  Who knows - but I'd have to come down on the not "race card" side of this one.

The term "race card" is as tired as fake claims of wrong doing because of race. TO ALL READERS: This is in regards to racist or discriminatory attacks against the public, within "any" public establishment, how a business or corporation (such as Walmart) handles such conditions, and the law within the State of Pennsylvania regarding such actions. 1) Management accepted racist remarks as "jokes", 2) The corporate office lied and intentionally sent letters which could not be traced, and 3) Walmart is aware all discrimination cases go to Harrisburg, Pa but is willing to follow those who are not aware of the PHRC through wrong forums until the 180 days has past. CONCLUSION: This was a very minor incident. There are larger discriminatory acts which occur within Pa. Don't bother with management, corporate offices, or certain local law firms. Contact the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission immediately to discuss your issue(s).

As pointed out, there are so many holes in your story. I bet you have a history with this person and your "bump" was a show of hey I am more dominant then you. I do not know this for sure and can't prove it and don't really care.  This is just all my opinion.  Another viewpoint from a person involved directly would be interesting.

Just as I thought..the more we let this person write the more they get caught in their own lies.

Due to initially filing in a magisterial court, obviously this was not about money
- Of course it was about the money because you sued them for $2,000, and got a judgment for $100.  If it was not about the money that would have been enough for you to just have them found responsible.  But it wasn't because in your own words..."The customer appealed the amount granted."

The friendly bump was to say hello due to being familiar with the two employees from previously working at this Walmart.
- From your original post you stated..."Sorry, didn't see you", then you asked where the fabric department was.  So you lied again.  When you told them you didn't see them you in fact did and this was just a way to say hello?  Do you greet other people you know that way?  One could see why a "bump" could be interpeted wrong.  Especially if there is some bad history between two people..which I would bet there is.
 
Can't wait to see what you come up with next.

If I were the wrong African American, the case would not have made it to court. Or, not at least for the reasons mentioned. The friendly bump was to say hello due to being familiar with the two employees from previously working at this Walmart.

The case was discussed with the commission. Walmart asked to settle with a promise from me to remain silent. This meant never mentioning the untraceable letters from Walmart's Global Ethics Office, not mentioning that although the witness did admit in writing the racist taunts occurred, Walmart showed that racist remarks against an African American consumer would not bring immediate dismissal, and the store manager admitting in court that he was aware, but excused this as "acceptable jokes". After turning down their request to accept the monies and remain silent, the worker was fired.

The more important issues which should be understood is the existence of the PHRC and the 180 days statute of limitations. 

If Walmart would have fired the racist in the beginning and discussed the matter with me, we may have been able to stay away from the courts and the commission. Due to initially filing in a magisterial court, obviously this was not about money. If it was, the case would have been filed in the county or district court. It was about Walmart being held liable for the actions of its employees (i.e. vicarious liability)

That if the OP continues to post we will get the full story.  Because the OP seems to be going out of their way trying to refer to themselves in the 3rd person that they can't even keep their story straight, and are letting things "slip" that probably wouldn't help their claims.

The employee, employed with Walmart for over 10 years, was fired
- I have a feeling that being fired than any supposedly racist remarks.  Which from the OP started after the OP gave this employee a "friendly" bump then stating that they did not see them.  So exactly how do you make a bump friendly if you don't know you are going to bump into someone?

Play the N word in Dickson City, Pa with the wrong African American visiting from Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Harlem, or the South Bronx, you will suffer the consequences
- So can we figure that since you keep refering to yourself in the 3rd person that you are the "wrong" African American and are in fact threatning violence if someone does that again?

Then there is this from the original report...
The customer was granted $100. Walmart appealed the decision.
From the update...
Walmart offered to double the magistrate award

Sorry but if they appealed the decision and spent so much time to get the case dismissed when and why exactly would they offer to double the award?

Sticks and stones played out in kindergarden. Racist insults in a public establishment by employees get innocent people hurt. Play the N word in Dickson City, Pa with the wrong African American visiting from Philadelphia, Brooklyn, Harlem, or the South Bronx, you will suffer the consequences. The employee, employed with Walmart for over 10 years, was fired. Walmart offered to double the magistrate award. I suggest sending the monies to Haiti.

You didn't suffer damages so I'm surprised at the $100 judgement. Go home crybaby.