Walgreens to Pay $2.1 Million in False Arrest and Assault of Alicia Benham

Walgreens and Security Firm Sued for Violating Customer's Civil Rights

Sussy
On Nov. 28, a California jury awarded Alicia Benham $2.1 million, finding her civil rights were violated when she was wrongly arrested in April 2004 for theft from a Los Angeles Walgreens store located at 6th and Vermont.

A Nov. 30 press release states Benham and a friend went to the Walgreens store to exchange an expired diet drink that she said made her sick. Although it's unclear what transpired between Benham and the clerk who refused her request, in-store security agents were summoned. Benham and friend were taken to a back room where they were confronted, intimidated and generally bullied. Security agents told them they were trying to return something they'd stolen and that a security video tape showed them stealing the drinks from a store shelf, something Benham vehemently denied.

During the trial, Benham testified that the security agent identified as Mr. Ray (who was unlicensed) threatened and intimidated her. She said he also made sexually explicit comments and implied that he would let her go if she gave him sexual favors.

It was an undisputed fact that Mr. Ray was hired and employed by S&J Security and Investigation and was working as a security agent at the Walgreens store. It was also undisputed that California law requires security agents to be licensed. However, a defense witness for the security company testified that the head of California's Bureau of Security and Investigative Services told him that loss prevention agents do not have to be licensed.

What makes licensing significant in this case is that Mr. Ray had a felony record and is said to have sexually assaulted a thirteen year old girl in another case while working at an Albertson's grocery store. Had the security company complied with the law and sought to have Mr. Ray licensed, his criminal record would've been found when his fingerprints were sent to the California Department of Justice and the FBI.

During deliberations, the jury found that the security agents lied about there being a video tape of Benham stealing from the store. The jury also disbelieved the defense witness's testimony that he'd been told by California authorities that loss prevention agents do not have to be licensed. Therefore, S&J Security and Investigation failed to perform a criminal background check on Mr. Ray prior to hiring him and failed to license him as required by California law.

In conclusion, the jury found that Benham was falsely arrested by the Walgreens' security agent when he held her in a small back room of the store. It found that when she insisted on her innocence and refused to comply with his unlawful demands, he made a citizen's arrest and lied to police that he'd observed her committing a crime. Benham testified that she was extremely traumatized by the event, and the jury's verdict clearly reflects its view of the harm that was done to Benham.

Benham's attorney, V. James De Simone said of the jury's decision: "This is an important victory. Walgreen's security guard was unfit to work because he had a felony record. He not only abused Alicia Benham but he sexually assaulted a thirteen year old girl in another case while working at an Albertson's. Had the security company complied with the law, none of this would have happened."

Source:

Press release, "Los Angeles Jury Awards $2.1 Million in False Arrest Civil Rights Case Involving Walgreens;" http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/11/prweb573183.htm

Published by Sussy

I'm retired and living in the country where I enjoy my family and my many animals: horses, donkey, goats, cats, and dogs. I love the outdoors and reading and writing about serious matters.  View profile

16 Comments

Post a Comment
  • Lenora Murdock12/7/2007

    This is also why I am all for potential employee screening.

  • Elena H.12/6/2007

    Great job with this story!

  • Elizabeth Mangan12/5/2007

    Excellent reporting. :)

  • Charlotte Kuchinsky12/4/2007

    Good job of reporting.

  • Nick Poma12/4/2007

    That is part of the problem when stores try to have thier own police force, they do not know the laws, as a matter of fact, most cops don't know the laws, but at least they are professional about it in most cases. I would have given her more, and I woud have put the agents involved in jail for false inprisonment and maybe kidnapping. It is not about how much the individual recieves for compensation, but instead how much the company has to pay which makes it a deterrant from further similar behavior. Great article!

  • Genie Walker12/3/2007

    I hadn't heard of this case - great article.

  • Zac Wassink12/3/2007

    i didnt hear about this. glad that this was resolved the right way

  • Nikki12/3/2007

    I hadn't heard about this, good report.

  • Kim Linton12/3/2007

    Great reporting. Very interesting read!

  • mwtsaginaw12/2/2007

    That was a very good and clear summary. I'm only a Republican on about 3 percent of issues, but this is one: tort reform. $2.1 million for emotional distress? C'mon! -- Mike

Displaying Comments
Next »

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.