Ex-Wal-Mart Exec Surrenders To Wal-Mart

Written by Evan Schuman
November 4th, 2007

Julie Roehm, the onetime Wal-Mart marketing chief who said she was improperly fired and counter-charged that Wal-Mart CEO H. Lee Scott extorts discounts from suppliers, issued a statement late Friday that she was giving up.

In her statement, which is now a leading contender for the "What did you expect would happen?" awards, Roehm said: "The sole purpose for filing the lawsuit was to recover the severance pay that was outlined in that contract. I thought that a settlement agreement would be reached within a few weeks. Instead, the lawsuit has expanded into other issues and has become more difficult and financially draining than I ever imagined."

Roehm’s statement said that her decision was influenced by discovery information from Wal-Mart and a key supplier—Irwin Jacobs–which she said "explained the inaccuracy of certain allegations included in her legal filing, specifically allegations about Lee Scott and Mr. Jacobs."

This lawsuit was unusual, both in the seemingly minor nature of some of the infractions alleged—such as that Roehm accepted an ad agency’s dinner that Wal-Mart said ""consisted of small, White Castle-sized burgers"–and the vehemence of the denials. For example, supplier Jacobs counter-sued Roehm, who had accused him of giving the Wal-Mart CEO a diamond ring and free trips on his private airplane. "If he owns a diamond ring, he didn’t get it from me," said Jacobs, noting that none of his businesses have anything to do with diamonds. As for airfare, Jacobs vowed that he doesn’t own a plane, and never chartered a plane for Scott and his wife.

This summer, a Michigan judge dismissed Roehm’s lawsuit against Wal-Mart on a technicality, namely that her employment contract required that such a lawsuit had to be filed in Arkansas. Her Friday statement said that she had decided to not re-file her lawsuit. "I have decided to accept Wal-Mart’s decision to terminate my employment and move on. I am not receiving any money or other compensation to settle my case."


2 Comments | Read Ex-Wal-Mart Exec Surrenders To Wal-Mart

  1. George Parker Says:

    The woman is insane. It is obvious from the ststement that her lawyers have told her she has no way of winning this. Why they envoureged her to proceed says something about them. Not only is this woman toxic and unemployable, she will spend the rest of her life paying off her legal debts. And if the supplier continues with his lawsuit, she is in deep, deep trouble. George Parker

  2. Erik Says:

    If you poke an 800 pound gorilla with a sharpened stick you really should not be surprised when that gorilla turns around and smacks you for it.

    The only way to take on Wal-Mart and have any hope of winning is via class action lawsuit. That way the gorilla turns around and finds not one but hundreds and thousands of people with sharpened sticks.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.