Connect with us

Business

Companies are diversifying their corporate boards. But Latinos are left behind

Published

on

Companies are diversifying their corporate boards. But Latinos are left behind

Cisco Programs, the multinational tech big primarily based in San Jose, has no Latino on its board of administrators.

Ditto for Intel, the world’s largest semiconductor producer, headquartered in Santa Clara, Calif.

Ditto for Tesla — which moved workplaces to Austin, Texas, from Palo Alto final 12 months — and for a bunch of different Fortune 100 corporations with hundreds of thousands of Latino prospects, workers and suppliers. Amongst them: Amazon, FedEx, Albertsons, Kroger, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Exxon Mobil, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, United Parcel Service and Berkshire Hathaway.

Latinos are the nation’s largest ethnic or racial minority — accounting for 18.9% of the inhabitants — and its fastest-growing group. In California, 40% of residents hint their roots to Mexico or Central or South America.

But whilst corporations tout their dedication to range, fairness and inclusion, Latinos are far much less prone to ascend to the head of enterprise energy in principally white boardrooms than Black People, who account for 13.6% of the U.S. inhabitants, or Asian People at 6.1%.

Advertisement

“We stay a blind spot for company America,” stated Esther Aguilera, chief govt of the Latino Company Administrators Assn., an advocacy group based in 2013. “The narrative has been, ‘We will’t discover certified Latinos.’ However there’s ample expertise.”

Throughout an enormous display screen at a latest San Diego enterprise convention, earlier than 6,300 executives and professionals, Aguilera splashed the names of 47 of the nation’s Fortune 100 firms with no Latino administrators.

Past the naming and shaming, she contrasted Latinos with different individuals of shade. A slide confirmed what she referred to as “the stark actuality” of S&P 500 boards: Black administrators at 11%, Asian administrators at 6% and Latino administrators at 5% in 2022.

Firms, she stated later, promote individuals primarily based on “perceptions of who’s worthy … and Latinos are on the backside of the barrel. But Latino expertise is correct beneath their nostril.”

The difficulty of who advantages from inclusion initiatives — and who doesn’t — is on the coronary heart of affirmative motion debates throughout the nation. California poll initiatives have outlawed preferences in public college admissions and authorities contracting. A high-profile case earlier than the U.S. Supreme Courtroom argues that Asian college students lose out when faculties favor Black and Latino candidates.

Advertisement

“We don’t need anyone to be under-engaged, whether or not they’re African American or Asian American or Anglo American. However we do need to see Latino and Latina People at par,” stated Solomon Trujillo, a former chief govt of telecommunications agency U.S. West who joined Western Union’s board in 2012.

“Whenever you hear CEOs and all people speak about ‘I consider in range and inclusion,’ I say present me the numbers.”

Solomon Trujillo, proper, talks with Kevin Reilly of Warner Media on the 2019 L’Angle convention in San Diego.

(Alexandra Mendoza / San Diego Union-Tribune)

Advertisement

Trujillo co-founded the Latino Donor Collaborative, a Beverly Hills nonprofit that publishes an annual Latino GDP report. Its newest analysis, by students at UCLA and California Lutheran College, pegs the financial affect of the nation’s 62 million Latino shoppers at $2.8 trillion in 2020. And in 2018, he co-founded L’Angle, the convention the place Aguilera shared her findings, as a technique to showcase Latino contributions.

Trujillo condemns the dearth of Latino board members, given the dimensions of the Latino market and the significance of cultural data. Firms with out Latino administrators danger “leaving cash on the desk,” he stated.

From the dais at L’Angle, he requested attendees: “What number of of you utilize an Exxon station to refuel? Guess who’re the most individuals on the highway, commuting to work each day? It tends to be Latinos in most of the main markets in our nation. So it’s a must to ask, why don’t they need a Latino or Latina on their board?”

An Exxon Mobil spokesperson declined to touch upon the shortage of Latinos on the corporate’s 13-member board, which has two Black administrators, however stated the board “believes range of thought, expertise, and background is vital for profitable governance.”

Cisco and Intel spokespeople stated their leaders worth range however declined to elaborate on why their boards, which embody Black and Asian administrators, don’t have any Latinos. Different Fortune 100 corporations referred to as out for missing Latino administrators supplied statements of help for range with out addressing the composition of their very own boards.

Advertisement

Daring ways, combined outcomes

Company boards, starting from about 5 to greater than a dozen members, wrestle with advanced challenges, together with fluctuating earnings, shareholder revolts and company raiders. Additionally on their agendas: environmental affect, local weather change, social justice and the way the corporate is ruled.

Administrators — chosen for his or her experience in technique, funds, authorized points, digital transformation and advertising and marketing — attend a mean of eight conferences a 12 months and their compensation on the 500 most respected U.S. corporations averaged $316,000 final 12 months, in keeping with consulting agency Spencer Stuart.

“Company boards are the place corporations’ tradition is established, how they make choices and goal sources,” stated Assemblyman Chris Holden (D-Pasadena), a former Black caucus chair and the primary creator of a landmark California legislation in 2020 that mandated racial and ethnic range on firm boards.

Numerous administrators can provide recent views.

Aguilera cites a big client merchandise firm, which she declined to call, whose board deliberate to search for new markets overseas. A Latina director pushed again. “She argued, ‘We’ve an untapped market right here, proper in our again yard, which is the Latino market.’ She influenced development and shareholder worth.”

Advertisement

However frustration over the sluggish tempo of progress is spurring daring ways. Latino Voices for Boardroom Fairness, a coalition together with civil rights teams UnidosUS and the Mexican American Authorized Protection and Academic Fund, has launched a public on-line tracker exhibiting what number of Latinos, if any, are on the board of every Fortune 1000 firm.

Thus far, 650 lack any Latino director. The group’s mission: Improve the ratio of Latino administrators to 1 in 5 — equal to the Latino share of the U.S. inhabitants.

The coalition first focused U.S. corporations primarily based within the Golden State, and never simply as a result of its big Latino inhabitants. The group aimed to spice up enforcement of that 2020 director legislation, Meeting Invoice 979, which was the primary within the nation to focus on race and ethnicity.

The measure required publicly traded corporations primarily based in California to nominate administrators from “underrepresented” communities.” The definition included people self-identifying as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, Alaska Native, homosexual, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

An earlier legislation in 2018, additionally a primary, had ordered California corporations to nominate feminine administrators. Each board measures are mired in litigation. Conservative challengers argue that any quotas violate the California Structure’s equal-protection clause.

Advertisement

“We’re outraged that corporations like Fb, Netflix, PayPal, PG&E, Molina Healthcare, Ross Shops, Chipotle Mexican Grill, El Pollo Loco, and Del Taco Eating places don’t have any Latinos on their board of administrators,” declared a coalition assertion in late 2020, amplified by a social media marketing campaign.

The technique drew outcomes. For the reason that call-out, seven of the 9 corporations have added Latinos to their boards — all besides Netflix and Molina Healthcare.

A Molina spokesperson stated the corporate’s subsequent new director might be Latino or Latina. A Netflix spokesperson stated, “We’ve met with the Latino Voices for Boardroom Fairness and look ahead to continued discussions.”

Over the past two years, the coalition has written to greater than 580 chief executives of publicly traded California firms declaring it “unacceptable” that “your organization earnings from Latino tradition and Latino buying energy, however your company has no Latinos on its board of administrators.”

The letters, providing to offer lists of “extremely certified” candidates, request conferences to debate range plans “inclusive of Latinos.” However the tally is to date underwhelming: Simply 3.7% of the administrators of California’s largest 505 corporations are Latino, in keeping with a January survey by the information analytics agency ISS Company Options. That compares with 14.6% who’re Asian and 6.2% who’re Black.

Advertisement

Why boards lack Latinos

Latino leaders say their company struggles are partly associated to a dearth of optimistic portrayals in motion pictures and tv together with the media’s intense deal with unlawful immigration, resulting in destructive stereotyping.

“We’re typically seen because the housekeepers, the farmworkers, the mechanics,” stated former California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia (D-Bell Gardens), co-author of the board range invoice. “Culturally, this sense of what we’re eligible to do limits us.”

Amongst U.S. professionals, 1 / 4 are Latino, a five-point achieve over the past decade and better than Latinos’ basic inhabitants share, in keeping with a McKinsey report final 12 months.

A woman with dark hair smiles.

Esther Aguilera is chief govt of the Latino Company Administrators Assn.

(Peter Fitzpatrick / Getty Photos)

Advertisement

However not too long ago a Latina financier who manages consumer belongings of $2 billion instructed Aguilera that she has attended enterprise conferences the place “somebody will inform her, ‘Oh, are you able to clear the desk?’ That’s individuals’s perceptions,” Aguilera stated.

Momentum and timing are additionally components.

The Govt Management Council, a bunch aimed toward selling Black executives, was fashioned in 1986 — 27 years earlier than the Latino Company Administrators Assn. And George Floyd’s homicide in Might 2020, whereas fueling the push to carry company boards accountable on range, boosted the appointment of Black administrators way over these from different racial and ethnic teams.

Among the many largest 3,000 public firms, the proportion of Black administrators has surged 90% since 2019 — greater than some other racial or ethnic group, in keeping with an ISS Company Options evaluation.

By comparability, the share of Asians rose 55% and Latinos, 37%. The proportion of white administrators fell 9% to 79.9% of the greater than 26,000 administrators.

Advertisement

“The civil unrest introduced problems with fairness and disenfranchisement to the fore,” stated Holden, the California range legislation creator. “In a state with a majority minority inhabitants, why weren’t we seeing higher progress?”

After the Floyd video launch, “you had a variety of firms making guarantees about range,” co-author Garcia stated. “We noticed a chance — let’s make good on these guarantees, beginning with company boards.”

However merely requiring corporations to supply from a broad swath of underrepresented communities, with out differentiating by race or ethnicity, ended up shortchanging Latinos, she stated.

“Firms assume, ‘We checked off the minority field. We’ve a Black particular person or a homosexual particular person.’ However they haven’t lifted all boats equitably.”

Holden calls the legislation “a toe within the water. When you decide one director from any considered one of these underrepresented teams, you’re in compliance,” he stated. “However the numbers present a gross under-representation for Hispanics. Firms should discover methods of recruiting [and] possibly add extra positions to their boards.”

Advertisement

Even when in the end invalidated in court docket, the California legislation’s method — measuring range by means of a large lens of underrepresented teams — dovetails with a nationwide template.

Firms on the Nasdaq inventory change should publicly disclose their board demographics. They will need to have a minimum of one feminine director or one “underrepresented minority” or LGBTQ+ director by the tip of this 12 months, and, for bigger boards, two by the tip of 2025. Or they have to clarify why they don’t.

However corporations can fulfill the rule with out appointing any Latinos — and plenty of have carried out so. They “clump” various administrators collectively, Trujillo stated. “A minority is a minority is a minority, proper?”

The proportion of Asian administrators has additionally grown quicker than that of Latinos, partly as a result of corporations increasing into China, India and Southeast Asia “wished Asian board members that would relate to the Asian market house,” Trujillo stated.

Julie Daum, a board knowledgeable at Spencer Stuart, stated corporations notably centered on recruiting Black administrators after the George Floyd homicide, and if fewer Latinos are appointed, “it’s not that they’re excluding individuals.”

Advertisement

“The notion of range is that you’ve totally different factors of view within the room, individuals who don’t all look alike,” Daum stated. “So that they’re utilizing the class ‘underrepresented,’ however I don’t assume it’s that you just want considered one of this and considered one of that.

“Are we going to say, ‘I’m blond. Now we’d like an individual who has darkish hair within the room as a result of blonds have a distinct expertise’? We’ve to be very cautious about dividing us all into teeny tiny little bits.”

Variety boosts earnings

Aguilera and different activists are leaning on institutional traders, together with pension funds and banks, to strain corporations to nominate Latino administrators. They cite latest research from organizations resembling McKinsey, Carlyle Group and the nonprofit BoardReady, reporting that range correlates with greater earnings.

Though giant traders are usually not pledging to particularly advocate for Latino administrators, they’re pushing for basic range, together with ladies and minority administrators.

Goldman Sachs has stated it might assist corporations go public provided that they’ve a minimum of two various board members. Glass Lewis, the proxy advisory providers agency, is recommending voting towards board nominating committee chairs at corporations with no administrators from underrepresented communities.

Advertisement

“Institutional traders are highly effective,” Aguilera stated. “They need totally different views within the boardroom. They’ve been writing letters for ladies. I stated, ‘Why aren’t you writing letters for Latinos?’ And so they stated, ‘Give us the information.’”

The collaborative’s GDP report makes an financial case: From 2010 to 2020, Latinos accounted for greater than half of U.S. inhabitants development and their consumption grew greater than thrice quicker than that of non-Latinos.

The administrators affiliation affords a database of a number of thousand skilled Latino executives looking forward to board appointments, lots of whom have skilled within the group’s workshops.

“The saying is, if you happen to’re not within the boardroom, you’re on the menu, proper?” Aguilera stated. “Properly, Latinos, we’re not even on the menu. We’re not within the room. We’re not even within the darn elevator.”

The group plans to ramp up public strain, launching media campaigns evaluating corporations by business — for example, contrasting Goal, with three Latina administrators, to different giant retailers with none.

Advertisement

“There’s a variety of competitors between corporations,” Aguilera stated. “Whenever you put their names on the market, they’ll hear.”

Goal’s Latino board members are Monica Lozano, former chair of U.S. Hispanic Media Inc., Grace Puma, the retired PepsiCo Inc. chief operations officer, and Melanie Healey, a former Procter & Gamble group president. And that range gained CEO Brian Cornell a high-profile slot on the San Diego convention, the place he careworn “how essential the Latino client is for our future development” and pledged to maintain increasing Goal’s workers of 120,000 Latino workers.

“Give Brian a fantastic spherical of applause,” Trujillo urged the group. “We don’t speak about range and inclusion. We speak about enterprise. And if you happen to’re a superb businessperson, you’re going to know who your prospects are.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

Column: Examining Trump's lies about what he did with Obamacare and COVID

Published

on

Column: Examining Trump's lies about what he did with Obamacare and COVID

My favorite Lily Tomlin line is this one: “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.”

I love it more today than ever, because it applies so perfectly to how we must respond to the campaign claims of Donald Trump and JD Vance. Especially Trump’s assertions about his role — heroic, in his vision — in “saving” the Affordable Care Act and fighting the COVID pandemic.

I’ve written before about the firehouse of fabrication and grift emanating from the Trump campaign like a political miasma. On these topics, he has moved beyond his habit of merely concocting a false reality about, say, immigration and crime to deliberately concocting a false reality about himself.

Donald Trump could have destroyed [Obamacare]. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.

— JD Vance, flagrantly lying about Trump’s management of the Affordable Care Act

Advertisement

To start by summarizing: Trump did everything in his power to destroy the Affordable Care Act, starting on the very first day of his term in 2017. On COVID, he did everything in his power to make America defenseless against the spreading pandemic.

Let’s take them in order.

Here’s what Trump said about the Affordable Care Act during his Sept. 10 debate with Kamala Harris: “I had a choice to make when I was president, do I save it and make it as good as it can be? Never going to be great. Or do I let it rot? … And I saved it. I did the right thing.”

This was the prelude to his head-scratching assertion that he has “concepts of a plan” to reform healthcare in the U.S. I examined what that might mean in a recent column, in which I explained that it would turn the U.S. healthcare system to the deadly dark ages when people with preexisting medical conditions would be either denied coverage or charged monstrous markups.

Advertisement

During his own debate Tuesday with Tim Walz, Vance made himself an accomplice to Trump’s crime against truth .

Here’s Vance’s version of the Trumpian fantasy:

“Donald Trump has said that if we allow states to experiment a little bit on how to cover both the chronically ill, but the non-chronically ill … He actually implemented some of these regulations when he was president of the United States. And I think you can make a really good argument that it salvaged Obamacare. … Donald Trump could have destroyed the program. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.”

Here’s what Trump actually did to the Affordable Care Act during his presidency. He had made repealing the ACA a core promise of his 2016 presidential campaign, stating on his website, “On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.” (Thanks are due to the indispensable Jonathan Cohn of Huffpost for excavating the quote.)

Trump drove down Obamacare enrollment every year he was in office; when Biden removed Trump’s obstacles, enrollment soared.

Advertisement

(KFF / Kevin Drum)

On Inauguration Day, Trump issued an executive order instructing the entire executive branch to find ways to “waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement” of the ACA.

During his presidency, he never abandoned the Republican dream of repealing Obamacare, even after July 28, 2017, when the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) strode to the Senate well and delivered a thumbs-down coup de grace to a GOP repeal bill.

Trump never ceased slandering the ACA as a “disaster.” He returned to the theme during last month’s debate: “Obamacare was lousy healthcare,” he said. “Always was. It’s not very good today.” As president, he threatened to make it “implode,” and used every tool he could get his fingers on to do so.

Advertisement

Just after taking office, he abruptly canceled the customary last-minute advertising blitz to encourage enrollments in Obamacare plans before open enrollment ended on Jan. 31. The last minute surge in enrollments, which had occurred every previous year, vanished. The drop-off was particularly devastating because it was concentrated among the healthiest potential enrollees — those who often wait until the last minute to sign up and whose premiums generally subsidize older, less healthy patients.

In September 2017 he slashed the advertising budget for the upcoming open enrollment period for individual insurance policies by a stunning 90%, to $10 million from the previous year’s $100 million. He also cut funds for nonprofit groups that employ “navigators,” those who help people in the individual market understand their options and sign up, by roughly 40%, to $36.8 million from $62.5 million.

The impact these policies had on enrollment was dire. In the three years before Trump took office, ACA marketplace plans experienced annual enrollment increases, to 12.7 million enrollees in 2016 from 8 million in 2014. During every year of the Trump administration, enrollment declined, falling to 11.4 million in 2020.

Every year since Joseph Biden took office, enrollment has increased, reaching a record 21.3 million this year — an 86% increase over Trump’s last year.

As for Vance’s fatuous claim that Trump “worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care,” you have the right to ask what Vance has been smoking.

Advertisement

The only bipartisanship on the ACA during the Trump years, Cohn observes, were the actions of GOP senators such as McCain and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska to cooperate with Democrats to stave off their fellow Republicans’ anti-ACA vandalism.

Now onto Trump’s fantasy vision of his role in fighting the COVID pandemic. Speaking in a low-energy, exhausted monotone at a speech Tuesday in Milwaukee and reading at times from a binder, he praised himself for instituting Operation Warp Speed, which funded COVID vaccine development in record time and got them rolled out in January 2021.

“We did a great job with the pandemic. Never got the credit we deserved,” he said. He then veered into blaming China for the pandemic, a familiar topic. He said bluntly that the pandemic was “caused by the Wuhan lab. I said that from the beginning, came from Wuhan. And the Wuhan lab, it wasn’t from bats in a cave that was 2,000 miles away. … It’s really the China virus.”

As for the rest of his COVID performance, he said this: “We did a great job with the ventilators, the masks and the gowns and everything. … When we got here the cupboards, our cupboards, I used to say our cupboards were bare. … No president put anything in for a pandemic.” Then he segued into praising himself for a big tax cut, and COVID was forgotten.

A few points about this spiel:

Advertisement

Trump is correct that Operation Warp Speed was a significant achievement. But he didn’t continue to support it by advocating for its product, the COVID vaccine. Instead, he has thrown in his lot with fanatical anti-vaccine agitators such as Robert F. Kennedy. He has repeated an anti-vax mantra, promising, “I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.” This is a formula for exposing children to vaccine-preventable diseases such as measles and even polio.

Trump’s reference to the Wuhan Institute of Virology as the source of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID, underscores how closely the so-called lab-leak theory of COVID’s origins is tied to right-wing partisan politics. The theory originated with Trump acolytes at the State Department, who saw the accusation as a convenient weapon in Trump’s economic war with China.

To this day, not a speck of evidence has been produced to validate this claim; scientists versed in the relevant disciplines of virology and epidemiology say the evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that the virus reached humans via the wildlife trade, and that its journey may well have started with bats thousands of miles from Wuhan, China.

Trump is lying when he says his predecessors in the White House left him without resources. The truth is that Trump himself hobbled pandemic response from the start.

In 2016, in the wake of the Ebola epidemic in Africa, President Obama had established the the Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense at the National Security Council “to prepare for and, if possible, prevent the next outbreak from becoming an epidemic or pandemic,” in the words of its senior director, Beth Campbell. Trump dissolved it in 2018.

Advertisement

During the pandemic, Trump cut off funding for the World Health Organization. He eliminated a $200-million pandemic early-warning program training scientists in China and elsewhere to detect and respond to such threats. He sidelined the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which had been established under Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Due to these steps, the U.S. was fated to sleepwalk into the pandemic. The COVID death toll in the U.S. stands at more than 1.2 million, and its reported death rate from COVID of 341.1 per 100,000 population is the highest in the developed world.

Ventilators, masks and gowns? Trump placed the procurement of this essential personal protective equipment in the hands of his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who handled the task incompetently. Kushner turned away urgent appeals from state and local officials for those supplies.

“The notion of the federal stockpile was it’s supposed to be our stockpile, it’s not supposed to be states’ stockpiles that they then use,” Kushner said at a briefing.

Following his remarks, the website of the government’s national strategic stockpile of medicines and supplies was changed from asserting that its purpose was to “support” the emergency efforts of state, local and tribal authorities by ensuring that “the right medicines and supplies get to those who need them most.” The new language redefined the stockpile’s role as “to supplement state and local supplies … as a short-term stopgap.”

Advertisement

Supplies of ventilators, masks and gowns remained scarce through the first months of the pandemic. A procurement official at a Massachusetts hospital system told me of having had to cut a deal with a shadowy broker offering 250,000 Chinese-made masks at an inflated price, completing the transaction for $1 million at a darkened warehouse five hours from home.

Trump made anti-science incompetence and disregard for the welfare of Americans part of our history. The same thing, or worse, looms on the horizon in a second Trump term.

Continue Reading

Business

Albertsons to pay $3.9 million over allegations it overcharged, lied about weight of groceries

Published

on

Albertsons to pay .9 million over allegations it overcharged, lied about weight of groceries

Grocery titan Albertsons will pay $3.9 million to resolve a civil law enforcement complaint alleging that it ripped off customers at hundreds of its Vons, Safeway and Albertsons stores in California, authorities said Thursday.

According to the complaint, groceries sold by Albertsons Cos. — including produce, meats, baked goods and other items — had less product in the package than indicated on the label. The company also is accused of charging customers prices higher than its lowest advertised price.

“False advertising preys on consumers, who are already facing rising costs, and unfairly disadvantages companies that play by the rules,” L.A. County Dist. Atty. George Gascón said. “This kind of corporate conduct is especially egregious when it comes to essential groceries, as Californians rely on accurate advertised prices to budget food for their families.”

The case was filed in Marin County Superior Court in partnership with the consumer protection units of the district attorney’s offices of Los Angeles, Marin, Alameda, Sonoma, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura counties.

Advertisement

The settlement will be divided among the seven counties and used to support future enforcement of consumer protection laws, according to the Marin County district attorney’s office. None of the money will be paid back to consumers.

The fine comes just over a year after the same company was ordered to pay $3.5 million for selling expired over-the-counter drug products. The company is also currently fighting a federal antitrust lawsuit that seeks to block its planned merger with grocery giant Kroger Inc.

Albertsons Cos. operates 589 Albertsons, Safeway and Vons stores in California. The company did not admit wrongdoing. It cooperated with the investigation and has taken steps to correct the violations, according to the L.A. County district atttorney’s office.

In a statement on the settlement, the company said it takes the matter seriously and is committed to ensuring its customers can shop with confidence.

“We have taken steps to ensure our price accuracy guarantee is more visible to customers by posting signage at multiple locations at the front of our stores,” the company stated. “We have conducted additional comprehensive training for associates to reinforce the importance of price accuracy and customer transparency. Additionally, we have enhanced price tracking systems to better ensure real-time accuracy at stores.”

Advertisement

Prosecutors in the lawsuit alleged that the company failed to implement a price accuracy policy ordered by a court in 2014.

The policy requires that customers who are overcharged for an item either receive the item for free or receive a $5 gift card, depending on which option is worth more. It is designed to encourage customers to immediately report false advertising.

Under the judgment reached Thursday, the grocery giant must implement this policy and ensure staff are properly trained to place accurate weight labels on products.

The serial overcharging was discovered through inspections by Marin County’s Department of Agriculture, Division of Weights and Measures and its counterparts across the state.

“We could not have achieved this result without the outstanding work of our Weights and Measures inspectors as well as vigilant consumers,” said Deputy Dist. Atty. Andres Perez, who prosecuted the case for Marin County.

Advertisement

For the next three years, Albertsons Cos. is required to hire an independent auditor to ensure it is complying with the terms of the judgment.

Continue Reading

Business

Disney faces class action lawsuit over employee data breach

Published

on

Disney faces class action lawsuit over employee data breach

Walt Disney Co. has been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing the Burbank-based entertainment giant of negligence, breach of implied contract and other misconduct in connection with a massive data breach that occurred earlier this year.

Plaintiff Scott Margel submitted the complaint on Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Disney and Disney California Adventure. The 32-page document also accuses the company of violating privacy laws by not doing enough to prevent or notify victims of the extent of the leak.

The class members, estimated to number in the thousands, are described in the complaint as individuals who gave “highly sensitive personal information” to Disney in connection with their employment at the company — information that was allegedly compromised in the breach.

Representatives of Disney did not immediately respond Friday to The Times’ request for comment.

Advertisement

The lawsuit cites an article published in September by the Wall Street Journal, which reported that a hacking group known as NullBulge publicly released data spanning more than 18,800 spreadsheets, 13,000 PDFs and 44 million internal messages sent via the workplace communication platform Slack.

According to the Journal, the compromised Slack messages contained sensitive information belonging to Disney cruise employees, including passport numbers, visa details, birthplaces and physical addresses; at least one spreadsheet listed the names, addresses and phone numbers of some Disney Cruise Line passengers. The publication later reported that Disney planned to stop using Slack after the breach.

The plaintiff and class members “remain, even today, in the dark regarding which particular data was stolen, the particular malware used, and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their [personal information] going forward,” the complaint reads.

The plaintiff and class members “are, thus, left to speculate as to where their [data] ended up, who has used it and for what potentially nefarious purposes.”

In July, NullBulge said that it had leaked roughly 1.2 terabytes of Disney data in rebuke of the company’s treatment of artists, “approach to AI” and “pretty blatant disregard for the consumer.” The self-proclaimed hacktivists told CNN that they were able to penetrate Disney’s system thanks to “a man with Slack access who had cookies.”

Advertisement

A Disney spokesperson said in a statement at the time that the company was “investigating this matter.”

Margel is demanding that Disney take steps to reinforce its security system and educate class members about the risks associated with the breach. The plaintiff is also seeking unspecified damages and a jury trial.

Continue Reading

Trending