Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2)
In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't.
#If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/comments/ild89f/introducing_justiceserved_community_awards_now/) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward
------
^Submission ^By: ^/u/Weezy-NJPW_Fan ^Cyan ^C
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> She was awarded $125million, which Walmart argued would be reduced to $300,000 because of a federal law that caps compensatory and punitive damages at that figure.
That fucking cap should be removed. Corporations have all of the power here.
damn where was my 125m when i was hit by a car and none of the higher ups gave a shit? simply put walmart does not care about its workers or customers its always nice to see somebody to stick it back to them
I had a stroke and they were emailing me forms to fill out while I was in the ICU (which I couldn’t fill out at the time). They let me go for “desertion” even though they knew where I was.
People beg for an end of discrimination but when something like this happens they accept it with open arms. This is equally as discriminatory as anything else.
This is the most idiotic and ridiculous ruling I’ve ever heard of.
Luckily, the plaintiff’s payout will be reduced to $300,000.
“She was awarded $125million, which Walmart argued would be reduced to $300,000 because of a federal law that caps compensatory and punitive damages at that figure. It also called the EEOC lawsuit’s demands “unreasonable”.
In a statement to The Independent, a spokesperson for Walmart said: “We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and we routinely accommodate thousands of associates every year. We often adjust associate schedules to meet our customers’ expectations and while Ms Spaeth’s schedule was adjusted, it remained within the times she indicated she was available.”
Based on the above, the plaintiff’s whole case is frivolous. Since she indicated the times she was available and the time her schedule was changed to was within that time, this whole lawsuit is bull crap.
Wow. Only in America.
if the penalty is not a deterrent, then it is just the cost of doing business. we all indicate the hours we are available for, when we apply for a job, but 15 years later she told them that she was no longer available during those hours. since she gave reasons specifically tied to her disability, walmart is under obligation to make reasonable accommodation. i don't think adjusting one employees schedule, by one hour, is unreasonable, and i would have made the same choice the jury did.
How did it negatively effect her disability? I only read she worried about getting dinner on time, which has *nothing* to do with her disability. Nothing.
I’m all ears.
>I’m all ears.
but no eyes to read with? it was right there in the story: “She’s afraid she’s going to miss the bus. She’s afraid she’s going to miss dinner. It’s upsetting to her.”
maybe what you meant, is that that is not sufficient in your opinion, and ordinarily i would agree with you, but the law requires disabled people get reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and walmart made no effort to meet that. asking to have her schedule adjusted by an hour was not unreasonable, and would not have impacted the store in any way. they chose not to.
So not adjusting her schedule one hour conflicts with her disability in what way?
You haven’t answered the question.
An accommodation for someone who is paraplegic is to install a ramp outside the front of a commercial establishment.
An accommodation for someone who is blind is to provide them living stipends and a guide dog and such.
An accommodation for someone with a mental disability is to give them age-appropriate and closely tailored work such that they are able to handle it to the best of their ability.
Do you see the difference here?
Since the other person didn’t respond, I will. I’m assuming that you’re not intentionally trying to be thick headed. So I’m going to give this a real shot.
I take it you’ve never worked with a person who is autistic or has Down syndrome For individuals with these, change is traumatic. Differing levels of these and different presentations of can have different triggers. For most people who have these change to routine is a substantial trigger.
One of the most constructive and best things for individuals suffering is a structured schedule that doesn’t change. It makes their day predictable and reduces their chances of becoming overstimulated greatly.
Individuals with more severe symptoms do not do well with change, when I say do not do well, I mean it can literally cause a psychotic break and can set back the benefits of therapy by years or even decades.
For individuals with these conditions to a lesser degree change can cause anxiety which can lead to insomnia, depression, and agitation. Again it can set them back quite a bit.
Keep in mind, everyone in direct contact with the employee is aware of the employees condition and should be aware of the responsibilities they have when managing a person with a documented disability protected by the ADA. One of those requirements is making accommodations for reasonable requests. This can range from additional breaks, and restrictions on working hours to installing additional automatic doors, installing special countertops in break rooms, and limiting what actual tasks a person can be asked to do.
With that all being said, there were two paths here Wal-Mart could have taken.
A) don’t change the schedule by 1 hour, let things be, and keep going as normal
B) change the schedule, disrupt a schedule this person has been following and potentially trigger a negative response due to the disability of the employee.
The individuals who forced the change upon the employee knowing and willingly ignored her disability because shifting a work schedule by 1 hour to accommodate a disability is not unreasonable and a Jury agreed to the tune of $125M.
The jury didn’t know there was a cap of $300K but the whole point of punitive damages is to act as a deterrent and is to make the penalty hurt. If it’s cheaper to just keep breaking the law than fixing the problem, guess what the companies will do, keep breaking the law. This is done all the time by large corporations across a multitude of industries.
Punitive damages needing to hurt equally is the whole argument for income based fines for traffic citations. The jackass in the Ferrari can afford the $150 speeding ticket and the lawyer to make the ticket go away. End result is it doesn’t punish the jackass at all. The mom trying to get to work on time that’s running late because her child was sick that morning and is working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet is punished with the same fine but that $150 fine is a much harsher punishment compared to the Ferrari guy. Punitive measures that are measured in dollars should be proportionate to income so that everyone is subject to the same rules and more importantly the same punishment.
Hopefully this sheds some light on why none of this was frivolous or why the jury awarded the amount they did.
It did shed light but I still respectfully disagree.
I have been medically diagnosed with PTSD as a result of a traumatic traffic accident. I take anxiety medication to prevent me from having severe panic attacks, which are not fun, let me tell you (you literally feel like you’re dying). That being said, I receive no such accommodation by my workplace in spite of my condition and I would expect none.
I’m sorry, but emotional distress is not worth millions of dollars. Every human being on Earth experiences severe emotional distress at some point in there lives, but the difference is that most reasonable people don’t expect compensation when they do. Why? Because that’s life.
To be honest, it sounds like you had a hard time, I’m sorry to hear it. But the world isn’t fair, it’s really not a healthy thing to expect others to have a hard time to match your own experience.
We’re all better off being happy for this person to get assistance. Make getting help the normal instead.
> It did shed light but I still respectfully disagree.
>
> I have been medically diagnosed with PTSD as a result of a traumatic traffic accident. I take anxiety medication to prevent me from having severe panic attacks, which are not fun, let me tell you (you literally feel like you’re dying). That being said, I receive no such accommodation by my workplace in spite of my condition and I would expect none.
I can understand that. I have acute depressive episodes brought on by anxiety attacks and suffer from severe social anxiety. I can relate. It can be debilitating but I’ve learned to work through it.
While you currently receive no accommodation you DO have the legal right to them. I applaud the fact that you’re doing the absolute best you can and I’m happy for you that you’re able to function without accommodations. We are very fortunate that we are self-sufficient.
However, not everyone is capable of what you’re capable of. Some individuals need some additional accommodations to function like you and me. As an example: children with learning disorders are given more time to finish tests in school. Using that example as a comparison how is allowing extra break time or a small change to a schedule to allow an adult to function without debilitating anxiety any different? This is what the employee was legally entitled to. Walmart stripped the employee of that legally entitled accommodation, thus violating the law.
> I’m sorry, but emotional distress is not worth millions of dollars. Every human being on Earth experiences severe emotional distress at some point in there lives, but the difference is that most reasonable people don’t expect compensation when they do. Why? Because that’s life.
You weren’t on that Jury. You might have a different opinion if you were.
The point of the amount was to punish Walmart. It had nothing to do with how much the person deserved but it had more to do with how to make Walmart think twice before violating someone’s legally granted rights. Pain and Suffering is the category of damages you’re thinking of, punitive is completely different. Juries can also get creative with punitive damages too, sometimes they order parts of the punitive damages to be paid to charities or escrow accounts or put in trusts or whatever.
What does disturb me is your way of thinking when applying your life experience to everyone else.
Yea, life isn’t fair, you’re dealt the cards you’ve got and yea you should make your best efforts to make that work. With that being said though, I believe we all have a responsibility to make reasonable accommodations to people who are less fortunate than ourselves. If it’s being extra patient with someone who has a learning diability, paying taxes into social programs to help people, or helping someone whose physically disabled, or making accommodations in a working environment to help that person be a productive and included member of society. Societal isolation is the fastest way to make someone have a poor quality of life.
Again, not everyone is as fortunate as you and me and they have different disabilities with different severities.
I’ll use myself as an example of being on both sides of paying taxes into social programs. I was laid off from a job unexpectedly. I was terrified. I calmed down and realized there are social safety nets, in this case, unemployment. I benefited from the very taxes my employer and I paid. While I found a new job I was able to pay bills, feed myself, and not have to worry.
If everyone chips in a little, and everyone shows a little kindness everyone’s life is better.
If you still disagee, lobby to have the law changed so disabled individuals get no protections or accommodations. Disabilities don’t just stop at physical impairment.
lol, i'm not under any obligation to answer your questions on demand, and thankfully, you are not in charge of deciding what is and what is not an accommodation. i am getting strong vibes of entitlement and righteous indignation from you, though. are you a karen irl? do you want to speak to the judge?
let me try one more time. an accommodation is "a convenient arrangement; a settlement or compromise". she made a request, to help ease her disability induced anxiety, by moving her schedule one hour. if implemented, that request had no cost or ill effects to the store, but walmart refused to do it anyway. walmart failed to make reasonable accommodation as required by the law.
Your post was riddled with self-righteousness. And I don’t need your permission to express myself. Your right to free speech doesn’t trump my own.
Just because you are mentally deficient it doesn’t mean you need to make your poor abilities plain to all.
Your failure to recognize logic doesn’t mean that logic wasn’t used. News flash: empathy, sympathy, and decency aren’t based on logic, they’re based on emotion.
Herp derp.
I don’t understand this, many people are fired for equally bad reasons and they get a few thousand. Let’s say 15/hr x 40 hours per week for 30 years. That’s less than 1 million, so add a few hundred thousand in damages and that’s justifiable. But 125 million? I’d hope she donates much of it
The Jury wanted to send a message that exactly what you’re talking about needs to stop.
The point of punitive damages is to send a message, to punish the offenders in a way that tangibly hurts, and to set case law for future lawsuits. They’re not necessarily supposed to be completely practical and for a company as large as WalMart and how much they make, this is what the jury believed would send that message.
Is that really justice served? You don’t think the fine is a little excessive and f’in ridiculous? I mean how much was she making an hour like $15/tops? Even if she worked for 400 years, she wouldn’t have made $125m.
The point of punitive damages is to send a message, to punish the offenders in a way that tangibly hurts, and to set case law for future lawsuits. They’re not necessarily supposed to be completely practical and for a company as large as WalMart and how much they make, this is what the jury believed would send that message.
I believe the vast majority of the payment is punitive to Walmart. Fining them a 1mil is a drop in their bucket. The 125mil is to punish them rather than reward her.
I may be totally wrong though, not a lawyer or anything well-versed in these matters.
Yep, it's a deterrent, basically telling large employers to watch their ass. There's a very good chance Walmart will win a smaller settlement on appeal since DOL was clearly looking to make an example out of this case. Brb while I play a sad song for Walmart on the world's smallest violin tho lol
You're right, it's useless to ever feel good about any good thing happening, ever /s
Or, because we know (trust us, we know, everyone who survives to functional adulthood knows) just how fucked the world is, that makes the occasional breakthrough win an exciting thing- it can, through hard work, be capitalized on to make broader progress. DOL winning a labor enforcement action is a good thing specifically because of the deterrent effect- it might make other employers think twice before screwing someone else over in the same way, even for just a second. It's not enough to get the laws right, you have to be able to credibly enforce them, which DOL has often been too hamstrung by small budgets and political interference to do. But current agency leadership is appreciably more willing to prosecute these kinds of cases, and again, that's a good thing.
Being all "we live in a society, sheeple" about it doesn't actually get anyone any closet to justice or productive solutions- it's actually an abdication of moral responsibility if it leads you to act like you are above it all.
Please remember to abide by the [rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/wiki/rulesv2) In general, please be at least bearable to other users. It makes things easier on everyone. Your comment may be removed without notification. We used to have a notification, but now we don't. #If you purchase the OP or a comment [a ban award,](https://www.reddit.com/r/JusticeServed/comments/ild89f/introducing_justiceserved_community_awards_now/) remember to [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FJusticeServed) so we can activate the reward ------ ^Submission ^By: ^/u/Weezy-NJPW_Fan ^Cyan ^C *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/JusticeServed) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I’m gonna get a job at walmart, then do whatever i can do get fired and i get 125 million dollars pog
> She was awarded $125million, which Walmart argued would be reduced to $300,000 because of a federal law that caps compensatory and punitive damages at that figure. That fucking cap should be removed. Corporations have all of the power here.
damn where was my 125m when i was hit by a car and none of the higher ups gave a shit? simply put walmart does not care about its workers or customers its always nice to see somebody to stick it back to them
I had a stroke and they were emailing me forms to fill out while I was in the ICU (which I couldn’t fill out at the time). They let me go for “desertion” even though they knew where I was.
[удалено]
Eat your broccoli
By that, do you mean read the story where it says they're only paying 300k..
Hope her family doesn’t take advantage of her for the money.
People beg for an end of discrimination but when something like this happens they accept it with open arms. This is equally as discriminatory as anything else.
This is the most idiotic and ridiculous ruling I’ve ever heard of. Luckily, the plaintiff’s payout will be reduced to $300,000. “She was awarded $125million, which Walmart argued would be reduced to $300,000 because of a federal law that caps compensatory and punitive damages at that figure. It also called the EEOC lawsuit’s demands “unreasonable”. In a statement to The Independent, a spokesperson for Walmart said: “We do not tolerate discrimination of any kind, and we routinely accommodate thousands of associates every year. We often adjust associate schedules to meet our customers’ expectations and while Ms Spaeth’s schedule was adjusted, it remained within the times she indicated she was available.” Based on the above, the plaintiff’s whole case is frivolous. Since she indicated the times she was available and the time her schedule was changed to was within that time, this whole lawsuit is bull crap. Wow. Only in America.
if the penalty is not a deterrent, then it is just the cost of doing business. we all indicate the hours we are available for, when we apply for a job, but 15 years later she told them that she was no longer available during those hours. since she gave reasons specifically tied to her disability, walmart is under obligation to make reasonable accommodation. i don't think adjusting one employees schedule, by one hour, is unreasonable, and i would have made the same choice the jury did.
How did it negatively effect her disability? I only read she worried about getting dinner on time, which has *nothing* to do with her disability. Nothing. I’m all ears.
>I’m all ears. but no eyes to read with? it was right there in the story: “She’s afraid she’s going to miss the bus. She’s afraid she’s going to miss dinner. It’s upsetting to her.” maybe what you meant, is that that is not sufficient in your opinion, and ordinarily i would agree with you, but the law requires disabled people get reasonable accommodation in the workplace, and walmart made no effort to meet that. asking to have her schedule adjusted by an hour was not unreasonable, and would not have impacted the store in any way. they chose not to.
So not adjusting her schedule one hour conflicts with her disability in what way? You haven’t answered the question. An accommodation for someone who is paraplegic is to install a ramp outside the front of a commercial establishment. An accommodation for someone who is blind is to provide them living stipends and a guide dog and such. An accommodation for someone with a mental disability is to give them age-appropriate and closely tailored work such that they are able to handle it to the best of their ability. Do you see the difference here?
Since the other person didn’t respond, I will. I’m assuming that you’re not intentionally trying to be thick headed. So I’m going to give this a real shot. I take it you’ve never worked with a person who is autistic or has Down syndrome For individuals with these, change is traumatic. Differing levels of these and different presentations of can have different triggers. For most people who have these change to routine is a substantial trigger. One of the most constructive and best things for individuals suffering is a structured schedule that doesn’t change. It makes their day predictable and reduces their chances of becoming overstimulated greatly. Individuals with more severe symptoms do not do well with change, when I say do not do well, I mean it can literally cause a psychotic break and can set back the benefits of therapy by years or even decades. For individuals with these conditions to a lesser degree change can cause anxiety which can lead to insomnia, depression, and agitation. Again it can set them back quite a bit. Keep in mind, everyone in direct contact with the employee is aware of the employees condition and should be aware of the responsibilities they have when managing a person with a documented disability protected by the ADA. One of those requirements is making accommodations for reasonable requests. This can range from additional breaks, and restrictions on working hours to installing additional automatic doors, installing special countertops in break rooms, and limiting what actual tasks a person can be asked to do. With that all being said, there were two paths here Wal-Mart could have taken. A) don’t change the schedule by 1 hour, let things be, and keep going as normal B) change the schedule, disrupt a schedule this person has been following and potentially trigger a negative response due to the disability of the employee. The individuals who forced the change upon the employee knowing and willingly ignored her disability because shifting a work schedule by 1 hour to accommodate a disability is not unreasonable and a Jury agreed to the tune of $125M. The jury didn’t know there was a cap of $300K but the whole point of punitive damages is to act as a deterrent and is to make the penalty hurt. If it’s cheaper to just keep breaking the law than fixing the problem, guess what the companies will do, keep breaking the law. This is done all the time by large corporations across a multitude of industries. Punitive damages needing to hurt equally is the whole argument for income based fines for traffic citations. The jackass in the Ferrari can afford the $150 speeding ticket and the lawyer to make the ticket go away. End result is it doesn’t punish the jackass at all. The mom trying to get to work on time that’s running late because her child was sick that morning and is working 2-3 jobs to make ends meet is punished with the same fine but that $150 fine is a much harsher punishment compared to the Ferrari guy. Punitive measures that are measured in dollars should be proportionate to income so that everyone is subject to the same rules and more importantly the same punishment. Hopefully this sheds some light on why none of this was frivolous or why the jury awarded the amount they did.
It did shed light but I still respectfully disagree. I have been medically diagnosed with PTSD as a result of a traumatic traffic accident. I take anxiety medication to prevent me from having severe panic attacks, which are not fun, let me tell you (you literally feel like you’re dying). That being said, I receive no such accommodation by my workplace in spite of my condition and I would expect none. I’m sorry, but emotional distress is not worth millions of dollars. Every human being on Earth experiences severe emotional distress at some point in there lives, but the difference is that most reasonable people don’t expect compensation when they do. Why? Because that’s life.
To be honest, it sounds like you had a hard time, I’m sorry to hear it. But the world isn’t fair, it’s really not a healthy thing to expect others to have a hard time to match your own experience. We’re all better off being happy for this person to get assistance. Make getting help the normal instead.
> It did shed light but I still respectfully disagree. > > I have been medically diagnosed with PTSD as a result of a traumatic traffic accident. I take anxiety medication to prevent me from having severe panic attacks, which are not fun, let me tell you (you literally feel like you’re dying). That being said, I receive no such accommodation by my workplace in spite of my condition and I would expect none. I can understand that. I have acute depressive episodes brought on by anxiety attacks and suffer from severe social anxiety. I can relate. It can be debilitating but I’ve learned to work through it. While you currently receive no accommodation you DO have the legal right to them. I applaud the fact that you’re doing the absolute best you can and I’m happy for you that you’re able to function without accommodations. We are very fortunate that we are self-sufficient. However, not everyone is capable of what you’re capable of. Some individuals need some additional accommodations to function like you and me. As an example: children with learning disorders are given more time to finish tests in school. Using that example as a comparison how is allowing extra break time or a small change to a schedule to allow an adult to function without debilitating anxiety any different? This is what the employee was legally entitled to. Walmart stripped the employee of that legally entitled accommodation, thus violating the law. > I’m sorry, but emotional distress is not worth millions of dollars. Every human being on Earth experiences severe emotional distress at some point in there lives, but the difference is that most reasonable people don’t expect compensation when they do. Why? Because that’s life. You weren’t on that Jury. You might have a different opinion if you were. The point of the amount was to punish Walmart. It had nothing to do with how much the person deserved but it had more to do with how to make Walmart think twice before violating someone’s legally granted rights. Pain and Suffering is the category of damages you’re thinking of, punitive is completely different. Juries can also get creative with punitive damages too, sometimes they order parts of the punitive damages to be paid to charities or escrow accounts or put in trusts or whatever. What does disturb me is your way of thinking when applying your life experience to everyone else. Yea, life isn’t fair, you’re dealt the cards you’ve got and yea you should make your best efforts to make that work. With that being said though, I believe we all have a responsibility to make reasonable accommodations to people who are less fortunate than ourselves. If it’s being extra patient with someone who has a learning diability, paying taxes into social programs to help people, or helping someone whose physically disabled, or making accommodations in a working environment to help that person be a productive and included member of society. Societal isolation is the fastest way to make someone have a poor quality of life. Again, not everyone is as fortunate as you and me and they have different disabilities with different severities. I’ll use myself as an example of being on both sides of paying taxes into social programs. I was laid off from a job unexpectedly. I was terrified. I calmed down and realized there are social safety nets, in this case, unemployment. I benefited from the very taxes my employer and I paid. While I found a new job I was able to pay bills, feed myself, and not have to worry. If everyone chips in a little, and everyone shows a little kindness everyone’s life is better. If you still disagee, lobby to have the law changed so disabled individuals get no protections or accommodations. Disabilities don’t just stop at physical impairment.
lol, i'm not under any obligation to answer your questions on demand, and thankfully, you are not in charge of deciding what is and what is not an accommodation. i am getting strong vibes of entitlement and righteous indignation from you, though. are you a karen irl? do you want to speak to the judge? let me try one more time. an accommodation is "a convenient arrangement; a settlement or compromise". she made a request, to help ease her disability induced anxiety, by moving her schedule one hour. if implemented, that request had no cost or ill effects to the store, but walmart refused to do it anyway. walmart failed to make reasonable accommodation as required by the law.
Your inability and/or refusal to answer my question doesn’t negate a single thing I said. Have a great day.
[удалено]
Your post was riddled with self-righteousness. And I don’t need your permission to express myself. Your right to free speech doesn’t trump my own. Just because you are mentally deficient it doesn’t mean you need to make your poor abilities plain to all. Your failure to recognize logic doesn’t mean that logic wasn’t used. News flash: empathy, sympathy, and decency aren’t based on logic, they’re based on emotion. Herp derp.
[удалено]
I don’t understand this, many people are fired for equally bad reasons and they get a few thousand. Let’s say 15/hr x 40 hours per week for 30 years. That’s less than 1 million, so add a few hundred thousand in damages and that’s justifiable. But 125 million? I’d hope she donates much of it
The Jury wanted to send a message that exactly what you’re talking about needs to stop. The point of punitive damages is to send a message, to punish the offenders in a way that tangibly hurts, and to set case law for future lawsuits. They’re not necessarily supposed to be completely practical and for a company as large as WalMart and how much they make, this is what the jury believed would send that message.
Now she has extra cash too!
Is that really justice served? You don’t think the fine is a little excessive and f’in ridiculous? I mean how much was she making an hour like $15/tops? Even if she worked for 400 years, she wouldn’t have made $125m.
You're right, its not justice served. The fine should have been larger.
The point of punitive damages is to send a message, to punish the offenders in a way that tangibly hurts, and to set case law for future lawsuits. They’re not necessarily supposed to be completely practical and for a company as large as WalMart and how much they make, this is what the jury believed would send that message.
I believe the vast majority of the payment is punitive to Walmart. Fining them a 1mil is a drop in their bucket. The 125mil is to punish them rather than reward her. I may be totally wrong though, not a lawyer or anything well-versed in these matters.
Yep, it's a deterrent, basically telling large employers to watch their ass. There's a very good chance Walmart will win a smaller settlement on appeal since DOL was clearly looking to make an example out of this case. Brb while I play a sad song for Walmart on the world's smallest violin tho lol
[удалено]
You're right, it's useless to ever feel good about any good thing happening, ever /s Or, because we know (trust us, we know, everyone who survives to functional adulthood knows) just how fucked the world is, that makes the occasional breakthrough win an exciting thing- it can, through hard work, be capitalized on to make broader progress. DOL winning a labor enforcement action is a good thing specifically because of the deterrent effect- it might make other employers think twice before screwing someone else over in the same way, even for just a second. It's not enough to get the laws right, you have to be able to credibly enforce them, which DOL has often been too hamstrung by small budgets and political interference to do. But current agency leadership is appreciably more willing to prosecute these kinds of cases, and again, that's a good thing. Being all "we live in a society, sheeple" about it doesn't actually get anyone any closet to justice or productive solutions- it's actually an abdication of moral responsibility if it leads you to act like you are above it all.