9/2/06

Target Stores Suck
FYI: Articles/info/misc postings about Target and Wal-Mart.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Suit: Blogger posted Target trade secrets
This article has relevance to the Directives, but if you want to skip it just scroll down to get to the Directives.

======================================================

Atlanta Business Chronicle
Friday 9-15-06
By Justin Rubner, Staff Writer

Suit: Blogger posted Target trade secrets

Target Corp. is on the hunt for a feisty blogger who has allegedly posted the retail giant’s secrets on the Internet.

The Minneapolis-based company is suing the unidentified “John Doe”, who is believed to live in Georgia, in Federal Court for posting Target’s anti-theft procedures on Web sites and various retail employee forums on the Internet in July.

The information is used to secure Target’s merchandise from shoplifters and other wrongdoers. Target says in a court filing it is provided to employees on a “need-to-know” basis.

To find out who the “John Doe” is, Target is seeking the help of AOL, Yahoo!Inc. and Microsoft Corp. It’s unclear whether these companies will comply, though.

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 5th in Federal Court in Atlanta, follows a two and a half month campaign that included efforts to get the multiple postings deleted from various message boards.

It also follows the publishing of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s recent theft-prevention policy change, leaked to the New York Times in July, which said shoplifters would no longer be charged for stealing less than $25 in goods.

Shoplifting is a $10 billion to $13 billion a year nightmare for U.S. retailers, according to California-based retail security expert Chris McGoey, also known as the “Crime Doctor”. Even though stores such as Target and Wal-Mart rack in tens of billions of dollars of sales annually, shoplifting can account for up to 3 percent of those sales every year, he says.

“That’s profit they should have gained,” said McGoey, who advises almost every national retail chain in the country.

Target operates more than 1,400 stores, including 45 in Georgia.

Target’s lawsuit illustrates the lengths to which companies will go to protect secret information from reaching the masses, said Jason Bernstein, an Atlanta-based intellectual property attorney at Powell Goldstein LLP. He says Target is trying to send a clear message to rogue posters that the publishing of trade secrets is something the company will not stand for.

“It’s demonstrating to me an incredible awareness these companies have of the importance of their trade secrets and confidential info because they rely on them to increase sales and prevent theft,” Bernstein said. “Companies like Target, they’re also trying to send a statement to the industry. They’re probably very upset over this.”

In the lawsuit, Target claims the postings have already led to losses and that they provide “potential wrongdoers with the blueprint for circumventing Target’s security procedures.” The policy which Atlanta Business Chronicle obtained at targetunion.org, outlines in detail various rules, such as mandating that all thefts above $20 must be referred for prosecution and barring anyone from photographing employees who have been caught shoplifting.

If Target does ID the blogger, and he or she still refuses to cease the postings, the company faces some sticky issues, a First Amendment and intellectual property expert says.

For one, it is not known whether the poster ever signed a confidentiality decree. If the John Doe didn’t, then Target would have to prove the poster knew the policy was confidential, said David Bodney, a First Amendment and media rights lawyer with Phoenix-based Steptoe & Johnson LLP. Bodney, also a lecturer at Arizona State University, adds that Target would have to prove the postings had no legitimate purpose other than to malign. “It’s an uphill battle, he said.

However, he also points out that free speech is not absolute, especially if a judge decides – as Target claims – that the policy is a court-protected company secret.

“It’s a disappointing reality that our constitutional liberties are conditional,” Bodney said.

According the suit, the poster obtained the 30-plus-page policy from a terminated Target theft prevention employee in Wisconsin. That employee allegedly e-mailed the policy to the John Doe and only knew the poster through his association with the anti-Target Web sites.

In July, just days after the employee posted the policy on targetunion.org, the suit says Target contacted the employee and demanded he delete it from the site and his computer. He allegedly obliged, but the John Doe never did – despite the fact that Target contacted the poster’s various e-mail accounts and posted messages on popular anti-Target Web sites demanding the practice to stop.

In response to one of Target’s postings, the blogger – who used screen names such as “Target Sucks” – allegedly wrote online “I didn’t sign any confidentiality agreement with them and really don’t give a rat’s ass if they like it or not.” The poster also warned others on targetunion.org that Target law firm Faegre & Benson was monitoring the site, and published attorney Kerry Bundy’s e-mail address and phone number. In response, another poster wished “a million scrounger” on the law firm. A scrunge is a parasitic alien on Nintendo video games.

An e-expert was hard pressed to predict which side has the upper hand. Eugene Volokh, a University of California law professor who specializes in free speech issues, compares the case to four others: three involving Apple Computer Inc., and one involving Fort Motor Co. Apple has had mixed luck with its ongoing war against leakers in recent years. And Ford in 1999, lost a lawsuit regarding a blogger who posted corporate documents showing some negative information about the company’s vehicles. The site, blueovalnews.com, still exists today.

Sidebar:
Protecting secrets or targeting free speech?

Target Corp. is suing a blogger for posting a secret theft-prevention policy online.

* The unknown poster is believed to live in Georgia
* Target is asking AOL, Yahoo! And Microsoft for help in locating the poster
* The policy has been posted on several sites, including retail-worker.com and targetunion.org

Source: Complaint No 1:06-CV-2116 filed in U.S. District Court in Atlanta.

================



TARGET CORPORATION V. JOHN DOE


Target Filing Sept 5, 2006



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

Target Corporation, a Minnesota
corporation, V JOHN DoE, 1 :06-CV-2116
Defendant


For its Complaint, plaintiff Target Corporation ("Target") states and alleges as
follows

INTRODUCTION
Target brings this action against an Internet user who is deliberately posting Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information across the Internet, including to a website hosted in Minnesota. Target seeks an injunction against Defendant, as well as other available legal and equitable relief arising from Defendant's tortuous actions.

PARTIES
1 . Target is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in
Minneapolis, Minnesota .

2 . The true name and capacity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time
Defendant is known to Plaintiff only by his Internet username "Target Sucks ." Additionally,

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 1 of 29

2
mrpauljrogers@yahao com, chams46Chotmail .com, anonymousematl2@aol com,
ILovePie@yahoo.com, and usembassysouthafi-ica@hotmail.com

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3 This Court hasjurisdiction under 17 U .S C § 101 et seq, 28 U .S .C.
§ 1331(federal question); and 28 U .S C § 1338(a) (copyright) . This Court also has
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U .S C. § 1332(a)(1) because the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states .
4 . Venue in this District is proper under 28 U S C § 1391 and/or 28 U .S.C
1400(a). Although the true identity of Defendant is unknown to Plaintiff at this time, on information and belief, Defendant resides in the State of Georgia and a substantial part of the acts of infringement and rrusappropriahon complained of herein occurred in this District .

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Target's Business and Valuable Intellectual Property
5 Target owns and operates retail merchandise discount stores across the United
States . Today, Target operates more than 1400 TARGET stores, including more than 45 TARGET stores in Georgia
6. As part of its effort to protect its retail stores from physical threats and
financial losses, Target, through considerable effort and expense, has created loss prevention procedures and protocols . One of the key loss prevention protocols created by Target is Target's Asset Protection Directives ("Target AP Directives")
7. The Target AP Directives are a set of written methods, techniques and
processes that are used by Target's asset protection personnel to secure Target's merchandise


Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 2 of 29

Internet at the website wrAw .targetunion .org . and other property from theft, and to deal with the apprehension of shoplifters and other wrongdoers .
8 . The Target AP Directives are Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary,
and trade secret information .
9 The Target AP Directives include information that is not generally known to
the public or in the industry .
10 . Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this
information The Target AP Directives are password restricted and only available to those employees with a "need-to-know," namely, the asset protection team .
11 . Target has an Information Security Policy where all employees, before
commencing their employment, sign an acknowledgement agreeing to maintain the confidentiality of Target's non-public information . and to never disclose it to anyone outside of the company.
Defendant's Improper Use of Target's AP Directives
12. On or around June 29, 2006, Defendant acquired a copy of Target's AP
Directives from a recently terminated Target employee, Scott Hundt ("Hundt") . Upon information and belief, Hundt only knew Defendant because of his anti-Target website postings Hundt sent a copy of the Target AP Directives to Defendant by email
13 Hundt, as a former asset protection specialist at a Target store in Wisconsin,
improperly kept the Target AP Directives upon termination .
14. On Sunday, July 2, 2006, Hundt also posted the Target AP Directives on the

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 3 of 29
4
15 . On or around July 10, Target learned of Hundt's improper disclosure to
Defendant and the Internet. Shortly thereafter, Target contacted Hundt by telephone Hundt returned Target's telephone call and acknowledged his wrongdoing . Hundt immediately deleted all references to the Target AP Directives from his hard drive and from the Internet .
16 . Target also demanded that Hundt contact Defendant and request that
Defendant destroy the Target AP Directives, delete any Internet postings of the Target AP Directives posted by him, and never use them again . Hundt stated that he did not know Defendant's name or address, and did not personally know him, but had his email address . Hundt emailed Defendant and requested him to remove the postings, but Defendant failed to respond.
17. Hundt also provided Target with the email address that Hundt had for
Defendant Target emailed Hundt a cease and desist letter at that address, but received no response .
18 Instead of abiding by Target and Hundt's demands to remove the Target AP
Directives, Defendant began posting the Target AP Directives on various retail-employee forums on the Internet, including the following locations :
http //targetsucks elevation24 coin
http //tivwtiv. targeiuniora org
http 11bullseyebb .aivardspace coin
http ://targetstoressuck blogspot corn
http //wwtiv retail-worker corn
http .//people tribe net

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 4 of 29
5
19. Beginning on or around July 12, 2006, Target, through its counsel, sent
demand letters to the moderators and administrators of the websites that posted Target AP Directives. Target advised them that Defendant, under the alias "Target Sucks," was posting improperly Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary, and trade secret information . (A copy of a sample letter sent to the moderators/administrators is attached as Ex . A )
20. In conjunction with writing to the moderators and/or administrators, Target
also attempted to contact Defendant directly by sending private messages to Defendant
through the forums . (A copy of two sample emails sent to Defendant are attached as Ex . B.)
21 In response to Target's demand letters, the administrators and/or moderators
removed the Target AP Directives from their websrtes .
22. Defendant, however, did not respond to Target's email messages . Instead,
Defendant re-posted the Target AP Directives as soon as the moderator and/or administrator removed them from the website. Target re-contacted the moderators and/or adrrunistrators, and the information was again deleted . Indeed, at least one of the websites - http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com - terminated Defendant's blog .
23 . On July 27, 2006, the moderator of -www .retail-worker coin posted Target's
cease and desist letter on its website and explained why she deleted Defendant's posting of the Target AP Directives . An exchange between Defendant and the moderator ensued, whereby Defendant admitted that he was posting the Target AP Directives for no reason other than to harm Target . (A copy of the email exchange is attached as Ex C .)
24. Since July 27, 2006, Defendant continues to re-post (or attempt to re-post) the Target AP Directives on the Internet At websites where his blog was inactivated, he has changed his username in order to be able to re-post the Target AP Directives

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 5 of 29
6
25 . Defendant's actions are a complete and intentional disregard of Target's
property rights . Since July 27, 2006, Defendant had posted on numerous websites that "Target's lawyers are monitoring this website ." In response to Target's cease and desist letter, Defendant states on the Internet that he does not care whether the Target AP Directives are copyrighted or trade secrets :
As to whether or not said info is in some form `protected', I have no idea and
don't care I saw it both online already posted and via email and if someone at
T let the cat out of the bag then that is between T and them . I didn't sign any
confidentiality agreement with them and really don't give a rats ass if they like
it or not . (A copy of the posting is attached hereto as Ex . D )
26. Defendant has never responded to Target's demands for Defendant to cease
and desist posting the Target AP Directives .
27 . Through various investigative techniques employed by Target over the last
few weeks, Target believes that Defendant uses America On-Line as his Internet Service Provider Target believes that information obtained in discovery will lead to the verification of Defendant's true name and address

COUNT I
Infringement of Copyrights
28 Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations
of the Complaint .
29 Target is, and at all relevant times has been, the copyright owners of exclusive
rights under United States copyright law with respect to certain copyrighted Target AP Directives .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 6 of 29

7
30 . The Target AP Directives are subject to a valid Certificate of Copyright
Registration issued by the Registrar of Copyrights to Target as specified on Exhibit E
31 . Among the exclusive rights granted to Target under the Copyright Act are the
exclusive rights to reproduce the Target AP Directives and to distribute the Target AP Directives
32 . Defendant, without the permission or consent of Target, has used, and
continues to use, the Internet, to disserrvnate and/or make available for distribution to others, the Target AP Directives .
33 . Defendant's dissemination of the Target AP Directives is deliberate, willful,
malicious, oppressive, and without regard to Target's proprietary rights
34 . As a result of Defendant's infringement of Target's copyrights and exclusive
rights under copyright, Target is entitled to statutory damages pursuant to 17 U S .C § 504(c)against Defendant for each infringement by Defendant . Target is also entitled to its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 17 U S C . § 505 .
35 Defendant's copyright infringement, and the threat of continuing infringement, has caused, and will continue to cause, Target repeated and irreparable injury . It would be difficult to ascertain the amount of money damages that would afford Target adequate relief at law for Defendant's acts and continuing acts, and a multiplicity ofjudicial proceedings that would be required Target's remedy at law is not adequate to compensate them for the injuries already inflicted and further threatened by Defendant . Therefore, Defendant should be restrained and enjoined pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U S .C. § § 502 and 503

COUNT II
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 7 of 29
Court
36. Target realleges and incorporates by reference herein the foregoing allegations of the Complaint.
37 Defendant acquired confidential and proprietary information belonging to
Target.
38 Defendant was advised that the information he acquired was Target trade
secret information that should not be used or disclosed by him .
39 After receiving notice of the confidentiality of the Target trade secret
information, Defendant had a duty to Target to maintain the secrecy of this information and limit its use for the benefit of only Target .
40. This confidential and proprietary information had independent economic value because it was not generally known to or readily ascertainable by persons outside of Target
41 Target intended to keep this information confidential and has made reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain the secrecy of the information .
42. Defendant has used and/or disclosed, and continues to use and/or disclose,
such information without the express or implied consent of Target, for the benefit of himself . Such use constitutes a violation of Ga Stat . § 10-1-760 et seq, and Georgia common law principles against misappropriation of trade secrets
43 . As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant's misappropriation of trade
secrets, Target has been damaged in an amount greater than $75,000, the specific amount of which shall be determined at trial In addition, Target has suffered irreparable harm and will continue to suffer irreparable harm unless the conduct of the Defendant is enjoined by this

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 8 of 29
9
WHEREFORE , Plaintiff Target Corporation respectfully requests judgment against
Defendant as follows :
An injunction, among other things, prohibiting Defendant from disclosing and
using the Target AP Directives and requiring Defendant to delete all Internet postings created by him of the Target AP Directives ;
2. Statutory damages for each infringement pursuant to 17 U .S.C § 504;
Recovery of Target's costs and attorneys' fees incurred herein ; and
4 Any further relief that the Court deems just and equitable .

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 9 of 29
1 0
DUNCAN & MANGIAFICO, PC :
,., Dated. September 1, 2006
nnife C Adair (#001901)
uite 220
7000 Central Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone. (770)698-4560
Facsimile : (770)698-4565
FAEGRE & BENSON LLP :
s/Dara Mann
Dara Mann (#469065)
Suite 1900
3350 Riverwood Parkway
Atlanta, GA 30330
Telephone : (678) 627-8190
Facsitrule• (612) 766-1600
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
TARGET CORPORATION
Of Counsel
(upon admission pro hac vice)
James R. Steffen (MN #469065)
Kerry L. Bundy (MN #266917)
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone : (612) 766-7000
Facsimle : (612) 766-1600
M2 2 08193 8 3 0 4
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 10 of 29
KERRY L BUNDY
kbundy"4fargrc cum
(6121766 .821
'lien" VIA E-MAIL
Administrator of "Return of the Target Sucks" Website
VIA E-NL4[L
Dear "Jen"/Ms . Destree :
EXHIBIT A
FAEGRE
BENSON _1
U \ I TFn ST47 F5 F NG LAND GERMANY C HINA
July 11, 2005
Jennifer Destree
Registrant of elevation24 .com
733 Hickory Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662
Re. Improper Disclosure of Target's AP Directives on Website
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc . (collectively, "Farget") in connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information We are writing to you in your capacity as Administrator and/or Registrant of the blog website http //targetsucks elevation24 com to advise you that a post to the website contains Target confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed In addition, the post wrongfully reproduces copyrighted material belonging to Target
[n case you were not aware, on July 2, 2006, user name "Target Sucks" posted to your website Target's 2006 Asset Protection Directives . These directives include information which is used in the conduct of Target's asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry. Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information As it appears from your posts that you are a current and,lor former Target employee, you are most likely aware that under Target's policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to the Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information
As we hope you can appreciate, Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the "targetsucks" website to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target's confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target's security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target's property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target customers and employees
220 0 WE LLS FAR GO CE NTER 90 SOUTH SEVE NTH STREET N71 yINE 4P OL]S MINNESOTA SS4D2 39 0 1
TELEPH O NE 612 7ss - 7 0 0 o FACSIMILE 612 7 6 6-160 0 WWW FAEGRE CO M
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 11 of 29
M2 208102 34 01
Jennifer Destree
July 11, Zoos
Page 2
We note that the rules of your forum expressly state that "Me owners of Return of the Target Sucks reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason ." Under the circumstances here, Target asks that you remove the July 2, 2006, and any other posting of Target's 2006 Asset Protection Directives at your earliest possible convenience In addition, to allow us to follow up directly with the individual who wrongfully posted the 2006 Asset Protection Directives, we ask that you promptly supply us with contact information for poster "Target Sucks "
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated, and we look forward to receiving prompt confirmation that you have removed the 2006 Asset Protection Directives from your site and to your provision of contact information for the individual that posted the2006 Asset Protection Directives.
Sincerely,
erry L Bundy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 12 of 29

EXHIBIT B
Bundy, Kerry L.
From, Bundy, Ke rry L
Sent : Monday, July 17, 2006 2 46 PM
To: 'annonymousemad2@aol com'
Subject: RE Improper Posting of Target 2006 AP Directives
Attachments : scan pdf
s can p df (78 KB)
Please review the attached letter . Thank you .
Kerry Bundy
Faegre & Benson
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 S . 7th St .
Minneapolis, MN 55402
612-766-8217
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 13 of 29
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame-
TELEPHONE 672 -766-70 00 1 F A CSI MILE 612 - 7 5 F - 560 9 1 %tiWW FAEGR h l'OM1t
FAEGRE
BENSON
UNITED STATES ENGLAND GERMANY I C HIN A
July 17, 2006
Username "Targetsuc ks"
annonvmousemail2 u,ao l. corn
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target's AP Directives on Internet
K ERRY L.. BI11JD t
k burdyf.4faegrc com
(6 121 766-82 1
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, lnc (collect ively, "Target") in connect ion with intellectu a l property matters and in connection wit h thei r ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information This l etter is to advise you t hat certain postings made by you of t he Target 2006 Asset Protect i on Directives on the websites http•//targetsucks.elevation24 eom, hitp://www targetunion.org,
hltp.//bullseyeb8 awardspace coin, and http //targetstoressuck blogspot.com contain Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed.
As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is used in the conduct of Target's asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry . These directives also include copyrighted material As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target's policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target .
Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter . Allowing Target's confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target's security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity. This not only jeopardizes Target's property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests it is our understanding that, although you were provided improperly with the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives by a former Target employee, that person has requested that you delete all postings made by you that contain the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such
2200 WEL LS FARGO CENTER I 9 0 SOUTH S EVFNTH S TRF FT I M17 INYCAPOLIS MINNESOTA S5a0 1-3 9 61
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 14 of 29
h12 20910 329 0 3
Targetsucks
July 17, 2006
Page 2
postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy all
paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .
Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 . If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action .
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated .
Sincerely,
CJ
Kerry undy
KLB/rew

Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 15 of 29

July 27, 2006
VIA E-MAIL
Dear Sir/Madame .


Username "Targetsucks"
Re: Improper Disclosure of Target's AP Directives on Internet
We represent Target Corporation and Target Brands, Inc. (collectively, "Target") in connection with intellectual property matters and in connection with their ongoing efforts to maintain the security and confidentiality of its proprietary information . This letter is to advise you that certain postings made by you of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the website http //Kww retail-worker coin contain Target copyrighted, confidential, proprietary and trade secret information that has been improperly disclosed .

As you know, the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives include information which is used in the conduct of Target's asset protection program and is not generally known to the public or in the industry These directives also include copyrighted material . As we believe you also know, Target goes to considerable measures to protect the secrecy of this information Under Target's policies and procedures, any Target employee who is given access to its Asset Protection Directives is required strictly to maintain the confidentiality of this information Access to these directives are restricted to Target AP employees and under no circumstances are they to be distributed to anyone outside of Target Target considers the improper disclosure of its 2006 Asset Protection Directives on the Internet to be a very serious matter. Allowing Target's confidential and proprietary security procedures to remain posted on the website provides potential wrongdoers with a blueprint for circumventing Target's security procedures in connection with shoplifting or other criminal activity This not only jeopardizes Target's property, but also could jeopardize the safety of Target employees and guests.

We hope and expect that upon review of the facts set forth in this letter, you will delete all such postings at your earliest convenience . Target also requests that you immediately destroy al paper and electronic copies of the Target 2006 Asset Protection Directives in your possession .

Please provide us with prompt, written confirmation of your compliance with these requests no later than noon on Tuesday, July 18, 2006 If we do not receive timely confirmation from you, we will assume that you do not intend to remove your wrongful posts, and we will proceed to consider and take further appropriate action
case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 16 of 29


Targetsucks
July 27, 2006
Page 2
Your anticipated cooperation is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Kerry L. Bundy
KLBlrew
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 17 of 29

WORKER
Search
Guess I'll hang out here then .
<>
Comment viewing options
Flat list -expanded ~ Date - oldest first T 10 comments per page T
Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to
activate your changes .

Most Recently
Commented
Home » Forum * Specific Stores * Target Employee Forums Anyone Know Why
The Target Sucks Forum Is Down?
Anyone know why the target sucks forum is- down?
Submitted by backroompeon on Mon, 02/13/2006 - 1 14am.
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on there earlier tonight .
loin or register to post comments j f I11 I ~ I 0 I aY ILo Ile I
P5
Targetflowslave
Says:
Mon, 02/13/2006 -
5 2 4am
redandkhak i
Says:
Thu, 02/ 1 6/2006 -
11 23am
Thats what i want to know
login or register to post comments
backroompeon wrote :
I am sorry to see it gone . And I had been on
there earlier tonight .
Guess I'll hang out here then .
Who gives a flying f**k where it went. It's narrowminded
people are gone, at least for now, until they start making
trouble here or somewhere else . You know the ones, the die
hard fans of target. Targets cks was a corporate venture .
login or register to post mments
there seems t o be s ome delet in g of thi s info g oin g on
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 18 of 29
sle K Says:
Thu, 07/27/2006 -
11 .34pm

s1eK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 -
12-56am
More like : If they want to F . with their
customers then their customers may want to
pay them back if they get a chance .
(Cir[ui t C ity Fo rum)
i 76 rep lies
(la tes t repl ies )
Inte resting Empl oy ees
(Wa lg reens forum)
0 repl i es
(latest r eplies)
shopl i fting
(walgreens forum)
5 repl ies
( la te st repl i e s)
Great p ost from HD Forum
( Your favo urite type o f c
( Cowes Fo r um)
3 replies
( latest rep lies )
A ll fo rums
Who's online
T h ere are curre n tly 1 7 use rs
a nd 77 gue s t s on l ine
Online users
Haggi
happyone
Ruin-Nation
ODCST
zsh
Shrinky
BlindsGirl
moblus8
Robber Baron
drucco99
LazyOne
Hamster
rid
9W bh5X4Kfy
HDMN
urathug
yeraC1951
Read our feed
Target's lawyers are out and about issuing cease & desist
letters.
edit: More information - Our first Cease & Desist, courtesy
of Target
login or register to post comments
Target Sucks .. wrote:
I'm not bringing up p. 2 of Kerrys letter . My
machine or didn't it post?
Your machine, I suppose, as I can view it in its entirety and
I've heard no other complaints .
sleK Says: Assuming that you're the same "Target Sucks" that's been
rnu, 07/27/2006 - posting the AP Directives everywhere, could you explain the
11 51pm significance of them or explain why you appear rather hellbent
on keeping them in the public domain?
I don't understand either the relevance or the purpose and I
haven't been able to find a suitable explanation .
sleK Says :
Fn , 07/28/2006 -
12 33am
Ok, so it is just disclosure for the sake of disclosure .
Quote:
BTW : Thought you caved in ra ther quickly on
that .
Well, if there was some point to it I'd probably be willing to
help. But, as it appears that there's really no cause and
you're just stirring the pot to see the water go 'round,
there's no reason for me to get involved .
login or register to post comments
Quote :
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 19 of 29
login or register to post comme n ts
Fair enough, but surely you understand how unreasonable it
is to expect site ops', like myself, to support your apparent
grudge when faced with the costly prospect of litigation?
Quote:
It may have taken 3 yrs but Tarbutt is spending
some cash trying to put the genie back in the
internet bottle .
It's a beautiful thing . Once it's out there it's out there .
login or register to post comments
sleK Says :
Fri, 07/28/2006 -
6 52pm Quote:
I would only opine that it seems to say that
once info is published that is the end of
confidentiality .
That may be so but it doesn't dissolve liability.
IANAL, but it appears to me that an entity needs only to
establish the economic value of the information and
demonstrate "reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy" of
the information before injunctive relief and damages can be
granted.
Quote:
Gee Slick, a 33 year old female ski bum ran
right over you I I I !
Is this addressed to me?
Look, I'm just trying to help as it's pretty clear that you
haven't the faintest clue about what you're getting yourself
into .
The simple fact is that you may end up in court, facing
whatever injunctive relief and damages that Target puts on
the table, should Target choose to pursue you . From
experience, I can tell you that it's not a fun place to be . But,
if you're intent on finding out for yourself, keep it up and
good luck.
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 20 of 29
Target's Lawyers are monitoring this web site!
Main Menu
Home
11' Ask the Rep
p Union Info
Forum
13 Blogs
d Chat
° News Feeds
P Create Content
° Recent Posts
V Site Map
a Site Stats
13 About This Site
Contact Us Comme nt viewi ng options
User {ogin Jflat list -expanded :rDa#e -oldest first .T 1 0 comments per page :-1j ;
Save settings
S elect your preferre d way to d ispl ay th e commen ts a n d click "Save se ttings" to activa t e your changes
fag in
∎ Create new account
∎ Reques t new password
login or register to post comments
Get Organized
Contact us to get more
Info about organizing your
store
Ask the Rep
∎ A potential problem
∎ Tec h n i cal
S up port/Trainer
∎ Target
∎ fired from target
∎ Unfai r treatment
∎ Hors e play t ur n ed lawful ?
∎ Do I lose shift
differential? EXHIBIT D
Forum topics
Posted by
Rockta ne
Put yourself in Target's place : one of your ex-employees has
posted on a website confidential proprietary information about
The Target Stores Employees' Web Site
Home » Forum N Workplace Issues » General Co nversation
Posted by Target Sucks - at 2006-07-28 08 : 38
This site is being monitored by the Faegre Benson law firm on behalf of Target Stores .
The screen name used is normally 'bunkl' and this person is Kerry L . Bundy of the law
firm of Faegre Benson 612 766 8217. kbundy@faegre .com .
He and his firm are monitoring this web site for anti Target activities .
FYI : http ://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727 .target cease_and_desist .pdf
and their web site is www .Faegre .com
pri nt er friendly page
Username :
Password :
Posted by This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give up your
jollyrancher information . Shameful of them to even ask . It's one thing to ask
Fn, 2006-07-28 to have your post removed, but I'm sure there is some sort of
11 :08 privacy act . A million scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson
Law firm.
Fast answers
from union reps
∎ direct deposit
∎ ETL Round-Robin
interview
∎ 8 hours between shifts
Posted by The link above refers to a different site, not this one, and the
Rocktane document in question is confidential proprietary information, not
Fri, 2006-07-28 anything to do with organizing or union activities . I'm sure they
12 :56 check this site also, as you would expect if there's a risk that a
disgruntled employee or ex-employee might be revealing
company secrets . I'm shocked that anyone would be surprised
by this .
l ogi n or reg is ter to po s t comment s
f Posted by I guess it doesn't surprise me that they monitor the site . But to
i jollyrancher sic their attorneys on someone. After my experience at Target
Fri, 2006-07-28 and seeing the Nazi behavior there, I hate everything about it .
13 :17 And any company that would work for them . Plague on them all
for supporting a company tha treats people so poorly .
login or reg iste r to post c omments
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 21 of 29
------ --
Fri, 2006 -07- 28
j 13 :40
log i n or register to post comments
login or regis t er to post comments
Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl~~~ help
me out
(General Conversation)
4 replies
(latest reply)
2 min 9 sec ago
ad takedown
(General Conversation)
1 replies
(latest reply)
8 min 40 sec ago
∎ Mi[ch Stover's
Distribution Roundtable
(Target Distribution
Center)
32 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 25 min ago
∎ Target's Lawyers are
monitoring this web site
(General Conversation)
21 replies
(latest reply)
2 hours 32 min ago
∎ Target Wal-Mart Liter
(wages and benefits)
19 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 18 hours ago
∎ Target Sucks message
board
(Announcements and
Information)
14 replies
(latest reply)
1 day 19 hours ago
Posted by
Rocktane
Fri, 2006 - 07-28
15 :55
logi n or re gi ster to post comments
All forums
Who's online
there are currently I user
and 26 guests online
Online users
∎ accidentallyhere
Syndication
login or register to po st commen ts
~--- -
Poste d by
--__1
New Topics
∎ ad takedown
(General Conversation)
(1 reply)
∎ Do I want to pursue
becoming an etl'77 help
me out
(General Conversation)
(4 replies)
vacation hours
(wages and benefits)
(1 reply)
∎ Target's Lawyers are
monitoring t'gis web site'
(General Conversation)
(21 replies)
Post-Interview Question
(General Conversation)
(0 replies)
Most Recently
Commented
the inside operations of a business you own, which, as one of
your employees, they signed an agreement not to reveal, and
which could cost your company millions of dollars . Y don't know
if such an offense would be legally prosecutable, but at would
certainly warrant pressure to stop it. I would expect you to pull
out all the stops . What is different about Target
Posted by I can see Target's side I guess, but then maybe they shouldn't
i jollyrancher treat people so poorly . I think they are a shitty company and
Fn, 2006-07-28 they and anyone that they retain, are one in the same, bastards .
i 15 :30 This lawfirm should be embarrassed to be associated with
Target.
jollyrancher wrote :
I can see Target's side !guess, but then maybe they
shouldn't treat people so poorly . I think they are a
shitty company and they and anyone that they
retain, are one in the same, bastards . This lawfirm
should be embarrassed to be associated with Target .
I agree that Target should not treat people badly . Nor should
any other company, in an ideal world . I am apparently lucky in
that I have not had your negative experience ; Target has
treated me pretty well . I've had a couple of GLs that required
me to use my diplomatic skills to get along with, and once or
twice I was denied a day off that I had requested, but otherwise,
I have no real complaints . I get chills when I think how I almost
got stuck working at a focal assembly plant when the Target DC
was having its job fair. That place would have been a nightmare
if they'd hired me ; just the few days I worked there as a temp
creeped me out for weeks . Thank god Target hired me ; there is
nothing they've thrown at me yet that I couldn't handle, or that
even approached some of the crap I've had to put up with at
other places . Obviously, it must be a lot different in your neck of
the woods .
~ Posted by I think it probably does have a lot to do with what part of the
jollyrancher country you are in . Certain people get into power and become
Fn, 2006-07-28 control freaks and make everyone miserable . And because of
16:06 that, sites like this form and people leak out sensitive info . V
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 22 of 29
Target Sucks -
Fri, 2006-07-28
17 :04
Firefox is a free, open
source web browser that's
way better than Internet
Explorer
login or register to post comments
i Posted by Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the original
jollyrancher post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman to represent such a
i Fn, 2006-07-28 selfish company That is funny about trying to keep the genie in
17:18 the bottle. LOL
login o r re gi ster to p ost comments .
Posted by
Target Sucks -
XML is a way t o gather
we b s i te he adlines without
visi t in g the site You can
use a p rogr am like
F eed R eader o r a web
b rows e r like Fire Fo x
~^ GEi F I REFO X
Ci
jollyran icher wrote:
This is horrible news . I hope this site does not give
up your information . Shameful of them to even ask .
It's one thing to ask to have your post removed, but
I'm sure there is some sort of privacy act . A million
scurges on Mr . Bundy and Faegre Benson haw firm .
[b]
As pointed out by another poster the site threatened is the 2
retailworker .com sites ( & retail-worker.com) I also noted that
one site on which this was posted is now closed down with no
prior notice .
As far as I know it was posted on this site by another poster and
even prior to that it was emailed to me and it was put onto
several sites .
I believe that the OP here and the owner of the TS site closed
were both employees of T, but I don't know that for certain, well
1 I don't know for certain . I doubt that either of them are still T
employees .
As to whether or not said info is in some form 'protected', I have
no idea and don't care . I saw it both online already posted and
via email and if someone at T let the cat out of the bag then that
is between T and them . I didn't sign any confidentiality
agreement with them and really don't give a rats ass if they like
it or not .
My private opinion, and I am not an atty, is that once someone
else posted it online it was free for anyone to copy or repast . I
think there may be some sort of constitutional argument there
about 'free speach' or some such BS but I will leave it to more
smarter people than me to look into that .
All I can predict is that other nice people, like those reading this,
will probably copy it and repost it on other sites, so the people at
Faegre Benson will be quite busy trying to get the genie back
into the Internet bottle .
BTV1f : Kerry L. Bundy is a 'she' (W/F/33) not as initially identified
as a 'he' . Take a look at :
http ://www .Faegre.com/lawyer_bio .aspx7pid=7371
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 23 of 29
Not surprisingly, there are advantages and disadvantages to
using trade secret protection to secure different types of
business assets. Deciding whether to patent certain technology -
or keep it under wraps as a trade secret - is often a tough
strategic call . Usually, the decision rests on the type of
information that needs to be protected .
Most intellectual property owners find the indefinite time limit of
trade secret protection appealing, assuming that the information
can be maintained in confidence and not easily replicated in the
market. For example, say that the knowledge you wish to protect
is a manufacturing process . If you patent the process, you get
protection for about twenty years . Even though your competitors
know exactly what you're doing, they can't copy your process
when your patent expires, however, it's open season on that
technology .
By contrast, if you rely on trade secret protection to secure your
process, your protection lasts forever, as long as the process
Fri, 2006-07-28 jollyrancher wrote :
17 :27
Duly noted on the gender of Kerry . I went off of the
original post . Even worse in my opinion for a woman
to represent such a selfish company . That is funny
about trying to keep the genie in the bott le. LOL
Here is a longish brief on info confidentiality . A casual reading by
me seems to suggest that once info is published it looses its
confidential trade secret status . Take a read and inform yourself
on the issue :
An Ove rview of Trade Secret Pro tection
Can you keep a secret?
That's the challenge for intellectual property owners who rely on
trade secret protection to secure their sensitive business assets .
Unlike patents, most copyrighted works, and trademarks - which
must be publicly disclosed in order to seek recourse from
competitors who want to stea l them -- trade secrets have legal
value only to the extent that they stay secret .
File a patent on a new chemical or drug, and you can enjoy
exclusive legal rights for about 20 years (often less in practical
market terms) . As long as you keep trade secrets away from
prying eyes, however, they last forever . The trade-off Once
they're out, they're gone . A no-longer-secret trade secret enjoys
essentially no legal protection under trade secret laws .
Just about anything can qualify as a trade secret - formulae,
computer programs, business methods, database information,
customer lists - basically, any knowledge that has economic
value because people such as competitors don't know about it
and could profit from it if they did . It doesn't necessarily have to
be new, different, or unique, as you would expect from patented
material and/or even fixed in a tangible form, as with
copyrighted works . As long as the information has value because
no one else knows about it - and you take reasonable efforts to
avoid disclosure - it can qualify as a trade secret .
Pros a nd Cons
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 24 of 29
Protecting Your Trade Secrets
How do you take reasonable efforts to protect your trade
secrets Here are a few key stepsremains
secret. However, if a competitor is able to replicate the
process (without stealing your information), such as through
reverse engineering, they're free to do so at a ny time, and there
is usually little or nothing you can do about it . So the question
your business faces is : how vulnerable is your knowledge to
being replicated or discovered by others The answer will shape
the kind of IP protection you're likely to seek .

Misappropriation
Unlike patents and copyrights that are governed by federal law,
trade secret protection derives primarily from state law . The
origins of trade secret doctrine date all the way back to a
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision in 1868, and
while numerous courts (including federal courts) have weighed
in on specific aspects of trade secret law ever since, no federal
civil legislation has ever tackled trade secrets directly . Instead,
trade secret laws have been enacted on a state-by-state basis .
Minnesota was the first state to adopt the Uniform Trade Secret
Act (UTSA) in 1980, and more than forty other states have since
followed suit . The UTSA was adopted in the wake of an
increasing reliance by businesses on trade secret protection and
a desire to codify common law trade secret principles .
Distilled to its essence, under the UTSA and most state
interpretations, the existence of a trade secret is established
using a two-fold test . First, you must have knowledge or
information that derives independent economic value from not
being generally known or readily ascertainable . Second, you
must have taken reasonable efforts to maintain the secrecy of
the knowledge or information . In that circumstance, the llTSA
provides protection by prohibiting the "misappropriation" of
trade secrets and providing various remedies, including
injunctive relief and damages .
"Misappropriation" covers both obtaining trade secrets through
improper means and disclosing or using them without consent .
The UTSA also casts a broad net to include not only actual
misappropriation (where the theft or disclosure has actually
occurred), but also "threatened" misappropriation (which some
courts have held to include events such as a key employee
bolting to a competitor and putting a trade secret at serious risk
of disclosure) .
What kinds of actions or circumstances create the greatest risk
for trade secret owners Consider the following :
One of your employees or independent contractors who has
knowledge of your trade secrets leaves to join one of your
competitors
One of your suppliers or distributors also works for a key
competitor
One of your licensees, customers, business partners, or
employees decides to start a competing business
You disclose your confidential information to a prospective
business partner, and the deal fails through
This is not an exhaustive list, just a sample of the many ways in
which day-to-day business dealings put your trade secrets at
risk of misappropriation
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 25 of 29
Extend the security procedures to computer systems . Obviously,
trade secrets stored in electronic format are particularly
susceptible to theft . The entire subject of information systems
security may warrant a thorough review by the organization, to
minimize the possibility of external "hacking" or internal security
breaches. The same care regarding access and labeling that is
extended to physical space or documentation, should extend to
computer systems where trade secrets are stored .
Be mindful of third parties . If business associates, prospective
customers, or members of the public have access to facilities in
which trade secrets are stored or used, take particular care to
avoid inadvertent disclosure . This might include accidents
(where documents are left carelessly in open view) or even
deliberate but unintentional disclosures (such as tour guides or
other employees who inform visitors about the project or
process within the facility) .
Screen speeches and publications where appropriate . Trade
secrets often wind up being disclosed unintentionally at trade
shows or in magazine articles, publications, press releases, or
speeches . Engineers, marketing executives, mid-level managers,
and others may exchange ideas with colleagues or share
information publicly because they are unaware of its sensitivity .
Put it in writing . Consider keeping a written statement of your
trade secret security policy . This provides two advantages . Fir st,
" unwritten rules" may wind up being laxly or inconsistently
enforced within the organization . Second, documented trade
secret pol icies provide evidence in court of the seriousness of
the company 's efforts to protect its secrets .
Let your employees know . A proper trade secret protection plan
should make employees aware of the confidentiality of certain
information and, where appropriate, periodically remind them of
thei r obligations to keep that information secure . This would
include hav ing employees counter-sign wr itten confidentiali ty
agreements. In addition, companies should consider conducting
"exit interviews " with departing employees that i nclude a written
reminder of their ongoing responsibility to keep trade secret
information secure .
Restrict access . "Sorry, that information is on a need-to-know
basis." Where appropriate, keep trade secret information
physically separate from nonproprietary information, and restrict
access only to those who genuinely require it . Depending on the
nature of the intellectual property, this segregation may be as
simple as keeping information in a separate filing cabinet, or it
may necessitate building an entirely separate and secure facility .
Implement physical security. Consider providing additional
security for the information through locked doors, gates, and
cabinets. Again, the level of physical security will vary depending
on the nature of the information and how the information is used
in the business operations .
Consider labeling trade secret documentation . It can be very
easy to reproduce, scan, and distribute documents today . Not
only should documentation related to trade secret information be
treated with special care, but in appropriate circumstances, it
may be prudent to label trade secret documents as "SECRET" or
"CONFIDENTIAL ." A company may also want to educate its
employees who have access to such documents about their
status, including the sensitivity of and destruction of trade secret
documents .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 26 of 29
login or registe r to post comments
1 2 3 next page last page
One tool for reducing this risk is implementing a policy of prescreening
all public communications .
Protect yourself with contracts . The nature of many businesses
may require a company to disclose its trade secrets to potential
buyers, licensees, joint venture partners, or other outsiders .
When engaging in these kinds of third-party transactions,
consider monitoring the flow of information carefully and
documenting the nature of the trade secrets exposed and the
specific limited use to which they may be put . This may include
specific confidentiality agreements with the third parties.
When properly identified and secured, trade secrets can often be
the most powerful of the various forms of intellectual property
protection, given the indefinite lifespan they can offer . Trade
secret owners can also obtain swift and dramatic relief in court if
they act quickly and have taken care along the way to document
and follow their trade secret protection plan . But trade secrets
are, by their very nature, fragile . A secret only has value to the
extent you can keep it a secret .
And in case you wondered who wrote this it is our pal Ms . Kerry
L Bundy the 33 yr old ski bunny from Mn .
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 27 of 29
Targ et Corporation
1000 Nictollet Mail
ASCIGIVED
JUL yl 4Y11
EXHIBIT E
Certificate of Registration
DO NOT WIMTE ABOVE THIS LMIl. IF YOU NEED MORE SPACE,US ! A SEPARATE CWrM)ATION Sam.
TITLE orrH1s woxx
Target AP Directives
agfft of Txwt Cc ;rp, dated
8IS /h filet; iti LIB .
EXAMINED BY FoRbf TX
CHECKED BY
CORRESPONDENCE FOR
COPYR IGHT
Yes OFFICE
USE
ONLY
mane s en, aca ro neon
2200 Wells Frrgo Center, 90 South 7th S tree t
Minneapolis, MN 55402
~~~~~ 611-766-8508
&
Case 1:06-cv-02116-CC Document 1-1 Filed 09/05/2006 Page 29 of 29


# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 3:02 PM 0 comments

# posted by Target Stores Suck @ 6:39 AM 0 comments
Monday, June 12, 2006

Target v. Handicapped!

I found this on another blog site and reproduce it here F.Y.I., I have no idea if the matter discussed happened or not but you can read and decide for yourself. (Note: Not responsible for strong language in this post):
============================================

Mon 11 Sep 2006 Target Targets Handicapped, We Target Them

Digg this story.

Let's just cut straight to the point: Fran, store manager of the Target located at 1245 Bald Hill Rd. in Warwick, Rhode Island? She's a cunt.

If that seems harsh to you, we can only say we wish there was a word in the English language that was even harsher.

Reader Lexi H. wrote us in with an absolutely appalling tale about how her elderly, handicapped mother was treated by Fran at the local Target. Her mother — a plucky old gal who requires oxygen and a wheelchair — was puttering around the Warwick Target in one of the electric handicapped carts when the battery died.

Lexi and her mother understood: these things suck, but they happen. What shouldn't happen is for the manager of the store to then rush out to verbally abuse and publicly embarrass an elderly, crippled old woman. Yet that's just what did happen.

We're fucking spitting mad over this one. In fact, we're putting out the call. We want you to read Lexi's story and then call Target to complain. Don't be rude, don't be a jerk, but we want you to call Target, mention Fran by name and register your disgust with a company that would treat any patron — let alone someone's sweet, wheelchair-bound mother — so completely inhumanely.

The Warwick, Rhode Island telephone number is (401) 821-0121. Corporate HQ seems to be 800-591‑3869 (don't press or say anything to get a human). Mention the store name, address and Fran by name.

And while you're at it, mention that Peter is a great Target employee, and should get a ribbon, if not Fran's fucking job.

Read Lexi's email, after the jump:
==========================
I am writing about a truly disturbing experience I had today at the Target store located at 1245 Bald Hill Rd. in Warwick, RI. My mother uses oxygen and a wheelchair, and it is hard for her to get about and go shopping. Today as a special treat, we decided to go to Target. We arrived at the store at about 12:30 pm, and I dropped her off at the door, and went to park the car. When I got inside the store, she was standing inside looking for a MartCart, one of the electric carts that most big box stores have to make shopping possible for handicapped patrons. There wasn't one available, so we went and ate lunch in the cafe and waited until one became available. A patron who was using it left, and my mother got in it and we entered the store itself. About 20 feet into the store, the battery on the cart died. I went back to the front of the store where the carts are kept, to see if another MartCart had become available. While I stood there, a friendly and helpful employee named Peter came over to ask if I needed assistance. I must add here that Peter seemed to be mentally disabled, which in no way was a problem or an issue at all- he was delightful and very kind during the horrorshow that our visit became.
I told Peter that the battery in the MartCart had failed, and he walked with me to where my mother was sitting in the dead cart. He looked at the cart, and agreed that the battery had died. He was about to say something else, when from about 25 feet away, another Target employee began yelling "Is there a problem?" Peter walked toward the yelling woman, to explain what had happened. Meanwhile, she began walking towards us. I noted that her nametag said Fran.

As she approached, she continued yelling. Peter was telling her that the battery had died, and she approached my mother and I by yelling (quite literally yelling) "I don't know what you want me to do, I can't shop for you." My mother said quietly that that wasn't what she wanted at all, but Fran cut her off by yelling again "There's nothing I can do for you, what do you want?" My mother said "I am not deaf, please stop yelling." Fran lowered her voice fractionally, and said again "I can't shop for you."

At this point, Peter, who as I say was differently abled but with a heart of gold, said that the cart needed to be charged. Fran ignored him and very aggresively and loudly said "I don't have a wheelchair, what do you want me to do, push you around in that?" pointing at the non-operative cart. My mother looked shaken, and said "It is humiliating enough to need help to shop, please stop talking so loudly." Fran's yelling was, in fact, attracting interested stares from other shoppers.

Peter again said that the cart needed to be charged, and I asked him how long that took, hoping to somehow salvage the day. He said it takes 7 or 8 hours to fully charge the carts, adding that it was usually done overnight. I said then, "Well, how long does a full charge last? It's just past noon, how many people can actually use it if it takes 8 hours to charge and only lasts till noon?" Peter replied that he didn't know how many trips around the store the cart could make on one full charge, but that it had not been plugged in earlier. At this, Fran began haranguing Peter, saying that the cart had been fully charged and had been plugged in that morning. He started to say again that it had not, and she cut him off yelling (again) that it had been charged, and that she didn't know what we wanted. He looked very distressed, as I think we all were, and I said to my mother who looked on the verge of tears "Let's go." She nodded, and I removed from the cart the few items (from the rack immediately inside the store) that we had chosen. I went to put them on the shelf, and Fran snatched them out of my hand. I said to Peter "Thank you," and then to Fran "You've very unpleasant, and I will be writing to the manager." She said again, aggresively, "There's nothing I can do." She did not, at that point, tell me that she was the store manager. I helped my mother to the door, which thankfully was only about 20 feet away, and ran to fetch the car. My mother and I left the store.

In the 8 years that my mother has been disabled, never have I seen anyone treat her in such a way. Fran's behavior was so shocking that I am still shaking with disbelief. Not only was she aggressive and abusive, she was mocking and seemed to think that if you have one disability, you probably have another, given that even after my mother pointed out that she was not deaf, Fran kept yelling at her. Fran's treatment of her employee, Peter, was similarly astonishing. At no point in this ugly experience did Fran apologize for the store's lack of handicapped accomodation, or make any effort in the least to be pleasant, conciliatory, or even simply humane. She seemed in fact to be angry and aggrieved to have to deal with a customer of different needs. I have never met anyone who seems to get their kicks by abusing the handicapped, and I am more disturbed than words can say. That my mother should be a one time target of Fran's abuse is horrifying to me, but upon further reflection, that her employees are treated in such a disparaging manner is equally disturbing, especially considering that Target receives public recognition for their diversity of staff.

I took my mother to WalMart, where she had her choice of 4 MartCarts, and we did some shopping. The moment I got home, I called the store, and asked to speak with the manager, as I had a complaint. I was transferred to a woman named Coila, and told her what had happened. She seemed horrified, and sounded aghast. I asked her if I could have Fran's last name, as I wanted to write to the corporate headquarters as well, and wanted to make sure that no other Fran would be involved. Coila told me that she couldn't tell me Fran's last name, and then she told me that Fran was the store manager. I think I stopped breathing for a minute. Coila then gave me the guest services phone number, and I spoke with another helpful employee named Evie, and told her of the distrubing experience.

I cannot adequately express the horror I feel at what happened this afternoon. It was truly one of the most upsetting experiences I have ever had, to stand helplessly by as my wheelchair bound mother and a mentally challenged worker were verbally lambasted by a yelling woman, the public face of a major corporation. I have always enjoyed shopping at Target, as has my mother. As I am sure you understand, going out to Warwick and going to Target is always something of an expedition for us, but it has always been an enjoyable experience. What happened today was so deeply disturbing, and I felt compelled to write this letter to let people know about the situation at the Warwick RI Target store.



read more:



Comments
homerjay says:

I started reading this email thinking "There's got to be more to this story. There's always two sides." Now I'm thinking that this woman is simply a total bitch (Fran, I mean).

Still, I think its a little unfair of you to blame Target as a whole. its not as though they have poliicies in place to discriminate. They just hapeen to have one psycho working there that shouldn't be.

Lastly, I REALLY hope for Peter's sake that he actually IS handicapped, because if he isn't his friends and coworkers are going to have a FIELD DAY with this email.


09/11/06 07:57 AM
John Brownlee says:

Target is, de facto, responsible for the behavior of its employees. Fran is a paid, managerial representative of Target. If they don't stand by what they did, they can make that clear.


09/11/06 08:05 AM
Jesse McBesse says:

Homer - I thought the exact same things about Peter!! ha.

Get ready, Fran, cuz I'm SO calling your ass today...


09/11/06 09:03 AM
homerjay says:

oh absolutely, but don't blame Target YET. Give them a chance to react first.


09/11/06 09:10 AM
Brianron says:

***DEVIL'S ADVOCATE ALERT***

Along the line of what Homerjay wrote, there are two sides to every story. Unlike the now-infamous Vinney Ferrari call, we have no information regarding this incident other than Lexi's version. Let's assume for the moment that what Lexi wrote is not wholly truthful and is greatly exaggerated.

Then you have given your readers the telephone numbers to call to further an exaggerated or false complaint about Fran. This will create a lot of problems for Fran, and potentially create some bad publicity about your blog.

I don't know if Lexi's version of events is accurate or not. But, in my experience, workers do not usually just immediately go ballistically mental for no reason. I have a suspicion that Lexi and/or her mother may not have been as polite as she has described. This would not excuse impolite behavior, but it would put it in a different light.


09/11/06 09:11 AM
boy says:

I've worked a customer service job or two in the past, and I quickly learend you NEVER treat a customer that way, unless they're threatening bodily harm or breaking the law in a serious way.

I highly doubt Lexi or her grandmother did either of those, so there is absolutely no excuse for Fran's behavior. Fran's side of the story doesn't matter in the least.

No matter what, I'm taking bets that by the end of the week fran = fired. I have faith in Target doing the right thing.


09/11/06 09:25 AM
Ran Kailie says:

What I would suggest that people put in a complain to Target is that they should investigate the allegations, because if this did happen its very serious.

I've shopped at target for several years now, and while I have experienced the occasional disinterested staff member I've never had anyone who was rude, even when I had a 8 year old with me who upon trying clothing on in the dressing room broke out in hives. Staff then was very helpful and pleasant, the manager even GAVE me a tube of benadryl cream for her.

But I think if this story is to be verified then perhaps the other employee involved, Peter should be spoken to for his side.

But I will definately file a complaint with Target in hopes that will react to this, but I also already feel Target does quite a bit to promote a welcoming feeling to everyone shopping in their stores.


09/11/06 09:27 AM
John Brownlee says:

Let's suppose for a second you're correct, and that completely reasonable sounding Lexi and her invalid mother are, in fact, gorgons from hell. Does that still justify the treatment she got? Does that make the complaint of Target not helping a crippled woman ring any less true?

We're not telling people to boycott Target, or blow up Fran's car. We're telling them to call, complain and let them know exactly what they heard.

On our part, we get hundreds of complaints a week. We've got a pretty good bullshit detector. Lexi's story has none of the delusional self-justification of some of the rants we've seen and called out. We have no reason to disbelieve her. Her email sounds calm, rational, articulate and hurt. Emails that trip our bullshit detector are none of those. If Lexi's experience is wildly different than she claims, I would be amazed.

What you seem to be claiming is that we shouldn't be outraged by companies when the evidence is anecdotal, or aim to do something about it.

Look, you guys aren't fucking sheep... if you read it, think there's some other interpretation, then hell, or we're off base, hell, don't call. But there's zero reason to believe Lexi is lying here. And if she isn't lying, she and her mother deserve, at the very least, some sort of apology for what happened. Call us cynics, but we've been doing this long enough to know that apology basically never comes unless it goes public and people get loud enough.



09/11/06 09:34 AM
DeeJayQueue says:

lets take a couple things into account, but with a grain of salt:

1. I don't see a date as to when they were shopping, but I'd assume it was within the past week or so. This is Back To School time, which for a retailer like Target is second only to christmas in it's insanity and level of stress for the employees.

Imagine (literally) thousands of kids screaming around in the store looking for that one elusive thing that the teachers all say they NEED to have or else they can't learn right. Imagine the self-entitled soccer moms and dads getting all huffy and puffy with the staff and management "What do you MEAN there are no more erasermates left? How will little bobby WRITE with no ERASERMATES???" It's a tremendously stressful time all around.

I'm not saying this excuses Fran's behavior at all, but it may shed some light on the reason her fuse was so short. You don't get to be the manager of a store like that without having gone through a few of these battles, but everyone has a breaking point.

2. As mentioned above, all we have is one side of the events, and of course it's going to be painted as "we were totally innocent and this chick was a cunt." She was probably pretty rude, and that's not excuseable, but it's still probably not the whole story.


09/11/06 09:49 AM
Magister says:

Devil Advocate again - When was the last time you read a consumer complaint where you heard the complainant admit they might have asked for a little too much?

She might only be writing what she remembers. She might have asked for another cart, then when rebuffed, said 'What are we supposed to do now?' That could have started the manager off by saying there was nothing I could do.

Now if our letter writer was already upset, she would take that much harsher than someone not involved in the situation. It is entirely possible this is a case where TWO parties got a little heated when they didn't need to.

Or imagine if our little slow helper said to the manager 'They seem really mad' or something stupid like that. That could also start her.

Do we assume all the evidence presented is 100% true? Nope, we never should.

Lots of knee jerking on this site.


09/11/06 09:49 AM
castlecraver says:

Not too harsh. We Americans sorely underutilize that wonderful c-word.


09/11/06 09:49 AM
Pelagius says:

I'm with the "two sides to every story" crowd and think some effort should be made to contact Fran to hear what she has to say before a jihad is launched on her.


09/11/06 09:51 AM
Greg P says:

This comes hot on the heels of the ADA v target.com suit being allowed to proceed.

http://sev.prnewswire.com/multimedia-online-internet/20060...


09/11/06 09:59 AM
Pelagius says:

I have to side with the "two sides" crowd here. Some effort should be made to contact Fran and hear what she has to say on this before a fatwa is issued. But I s'pose that's the key difference between blogging and journalism.



09/11/06 10:00 AM
mfergel says:

I find it highly unlikely that a manager simply walked up and started complaining/yelling to customers. Sounds like a he said/she said scenario expect that we haven't heard the other side of the story.

Personally, I'd rather hear it from Peter's point of view.


09/11/06 10:07 AM
John Brownlee says:

Ben's calling her now. Not sure we'll get anything out of it, but you never know.


09/11/06 10:11 AM
Ben Popken says:

Fran's on vacation. The operator "doesn't think Peter can help me" and manager Matt says all reporter requests have to go through corporate. He "put me on hold" to find their number and hung up on me. Meh.


09/11/06 10:22 AM
Brianron says:

John Brownlee:
Your call
The point isn't that this activity, if it happened as Lexi described, should go unpunished -- it shouldn't. And if it is anywhere close to what she described, Fran should be fired. The point is that it should be investigated rather than there being a rush to judgment based on "mob rule" led by one side of the issue.

It is one thing for your blog to present these anecdotal incidents to show what has happened and how the corporations do or do not respond (i.e., AOL). And it is quite another thing for you to rally the troops to become actively involved. After all, rightly or wrongly, Fran's job is in the balance.



09/11/06 10:31 AM
Ben Popken says:

Reached Matt, got a number for a corporate relations person, left a message with her.


09/11/06 10:36 AM
Triteon says:

I agree with hearing both sides, right up until one side chooses not to respond.


09/11/06 10:42 AM
Ben Popken says:

Posting audio shortly.


09/11/06 11:02 AM
AcilletaM says:

1. I don't see a date as to when they were shopping, but I'd assume it was within the past week or so. This is Back To School time, which for a retailer like Target is second only to christmas in it's insanity and level of stress for the employees.


OK, devil's advocates, this being true, don't you think this isn't the time for a store manager to be on vacation?


09/11/06 11:11 AM
Yep says:

It's Rhode Island. Everybody yells here. That and tailgating at high speed are state-wide pastimes.


09/11/06 11:13 AM
AcilletaM says:

Can't wait, I have my pitchfork and torch at the ready!


09/11/06 11:14 AM
puffermedia says:

I live in RI, and have actually shopped at this Target (though I try to avoid this strip of road lately - mega-store, strip-mall hell!). To those of you who doubt this: Unfortunately, these kind of shrews (both male & female) are not uncommon in RI; a sort of undeserved discontent that seems to be pretty common around here, where everything is a huge hassle, and everything is a reason to complain. But this is just beyond the pale. Chances are, I'll let them know I will avoid their store unless this piece-of-work is demoted to the person who chases shopping carts in the parking lot (and it's a huge lot! on an incline!).


09/11/06 11:14 AM
Rectilinear Propagation says:

Unless Fran comes back with a version that's very different from what's in Lexi's e-mail, I doubt hearing her side will change people's opinion very much.

I will agree that we should be more careful when it comes to acting on information about individuals (as opposed to companies) since it could mean someone getting fired instead of just having to give out a coupon and an apology.


09/11/06 11:16 AM
Mary Marsala With Fries says:

I think the Devils' Advocates are missing the point: Of course there shouldn't be a jihad declared against Fran -- and there won't be by us; nobody's talking about going to Warwick and setting Fran on fire here. It would be her employer who chose to take action or not, and they should absolutely investigate first.

But, should we, the general public, raise a horrendous stink until said employer agrees to investigate and do the right thing? Hells yes. Let's not forget that this is corporate America, folks; sitting quietly and leaving it up to the suits is tantamount to surrender. Target should do something about it, and it IS our job to make them.
-M


09/11/06 11:26 AM
Kishi says:

But, in my experience, workers do not usually just immediately go ballistically mental for no reason.

I've worked for at least one manager who has, and frequently did, go ballistic on customers (and employees and vendors) for very, very minor reasons. Hence why I don't work for her any more.


09/11/06 11:40 AM
cooper says:

surely "vacation" = admin leave.


09/11/06 11:48 AM
christy says:

Even without hearing the other side of the story, I am hard-pressed to think of a reason for a store manager to say "I can't shop for you!" no matter the provocation.

And that phrase in particular seems like an odd thing to make up, if Lexi was indeed fabricating a story.

My bets are on Fran being a cunt.


09/11/06 12:02 PM
woodenturkey says:

"I find it highly unlikely that a manager simply walked up and started complaining/yelling to customers. Sounds like a he said/she said scenario expect that we haven't heard the other side of the story."
WHAT!!! Have you ever worked in retail before, I have seen managers do alot worse than this. Just because someone scanned barcodes long enough to get promoted that doesnt mean that they have the brain power to be a good leader / communicator. And saying that the Back to school crowd of kids was a stresser might be the cause is BS, what does she do a Christmas? Shoot kittens? If you cant handle the stress that comes with a high volume of customer in a short period of time GTF out of Target and lick envelopes.



09/11/06 12:10 PM
mfergel says:

<<<< >>>>>

Yeah, I've worked a lot of retail and typically, it's the employees that receive the brunt of bad managers with the majority of managers telling the employee to do the dirty work,.....in this case, Fran telling Peter to tell the customer that "We can't do your shopping for you."

For me, honestly, if granny is in such bad shape, why wasn't she traveling with, at the very least, her own wheelchair. What if there had been no motorized carts at Target that day? I've got nothing against people in wheel chairs or oxygen tanks (my Grandfather was in the same situation before he passed away last year) but too many people EXPECT these things. If in fact this happened, yeah, Fran does have some issues, but along the same line.....what did this women want Target to do?? Peter had already told them that it would take 7 hours to recharge.

Oh, and I hate it when people drop people off at the front door.....that's why the handicap space is up front.


09/11/06 01:00 PM
Mike Smeen says:

I'll agree that both sides should indeed be investigated. But the fact of the matter remains that in retail, it is your job to put up with customers. Even if the customers were rude, the customer is "always right."

As a retail manager, your job is basically damage control for when these things predictably happen with your salespeople and cashiers. You need to be setting an example for how to deal with even the most irate customers.


09/11/06 01:31 PM
Ben Thoma says:

After reading all of the comments, I called the store to log a complaint. It does seem that Fran is a store manager, so I was directed to Target's Guest Services hotline which was 800-440-0680, where a nice rep. took down all of the information and gave me an incident number.

Hopefully, the incident will be investigated further. With the limited time I've worked in retail, I know that even if the customer is wrong about something, you definitely want to work with them, as opposed to letting your emotions override your customer service. Even if Lexi were throwing a fit, the counter-response should never be yelling.


09/11/06 02:19 PM
etinterrapax says:

This sounds to me like another one of those instances when a manager failed to consider what her actions would sound like when relayed to a third party. I don't think it's an unreasonable customer expectation for there to be appropriate and functional devices to accommodate disabled patrons. I would think it unreasonable if a customer, upon finding that there were not such devices, demanded that management (or even an an associate) shop for her. However, it doesn't sound as though this happened, and moreover, it would not be completely unheard-of for an associated to provide that kind of assistance. I did it more than once when I worked for HellMart. It comes down to providing reasonable alternatives, not standing there like a buttmunch and saying things like, "I don't know what you want me to do," and "I can't do that." And it doesn't sound like it even crossed Fran's mind to do that.


09/11/06 02:52 PM
SecureLocation says:

Maybe the manager got to believing Target's hype and thinks she works at an exclusive, upscale boutique (the kind where customers like being abused) and not, you know, K-Mart with a bigger ad budget.


09/11/06 05:19 PM
Plasmafire says:

Maybe it was her time of the month....

But that's still no excuse for her behaviour.


09/11/06 08:24 PM
breaker says:

This story seems almost too one-sided. I think it is extremely unlikely that the store manager would run up to a disabled customer in a wheelchair and start accosting her for all to see. And then she accosts her mentally challenged subordinate worker who was an absolute angel? What did she do next, pull a live puppy out and punt the thing across the store? I think we need to hear a 3rd party's account of this or at least the other side of the story.
tips@consumerist.com





--------------------

Another Reason Why Target Stores SUCK!
Salvation Army Miffed at Target

Valerie Hoff Reports


Reported By: Valerie Hoff
Web Editor: Ian Stinson


Target is turning away non-profits because too many have asked to solicit donations at the stores.

The Salvation Army's bell-ringers have often been seen outside Target and the chain's competitors. They bring in $8.8 million a year in donations.

Now, Target stores are turning the Salvation Army away. Target stores were not available to comment on camera, but in a written statement said the following:

"If we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit, then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests."

It also said Target donates more than two million dollars a week to various communities.


------------------

Links to other sites that may interest you:
Below are links for various sites that might be of interest.

You might want to highlight/copy and take the whole list to your own computer file.
===========================================================

29 Page 'Is Wal Mart Safe' - Crime Report -
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf

A Target Site, but only 100 members -
http://bullseyebb.awardspace.com/index.php

Anti Wal Mart Site w/11,000 Users -
http://www.wallyworldsucks.com/

Anti Wal Mart Site, 4500 members -
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff

Anti Wal-Mart message board w/8 pages of links -
http://groups.msn.com/ABUSEDBYWALMART/home

Anti Wal-Mart Site -
http://www.walmart-blows.com/forum/index.php?sid=b934681dc89ad9f7a0384e21afb6b7ff

Anti Wal-Mart Site - Worth a Look -
http://walmartwatch.com/

AP/LP Site -
http://www.retailspy.com/

Attorney for Target Stores - Ms. K L Bundy -
http://www.faegre.com/lawyer_bio.aspx?pid=7371

Consumer Site - Look up your least favorite retail chain and see the complaints! -
www.badbusinessbureau.com

Consumer Site w/radio show has various message boards for complaints, based in Atlanta
http://www.clarkhoward.com

Find Out How Unions Rip You Off -
http://unionfacts.com/

Forums for 15+ retail chains, 27,000 Users -
http://www.retailworker.com/

Gen. Consumer Comp. site w/250+ Target complaints -
http://www.my3cents.com/

Great Retail Industry Site - Take a Look! -
http://retailindustry.about.com/od/lp/a/bl_hayes_theft.htm?rd=1

message board for those who have worked at Target -
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/TargetSucks/?yguid=262065473

Site has 16+ forums for retail stores, an active site -
www.retailworker.com

Target as bad as Wal-Mart? You decide! -
http://www.alternet.org/workplace/35610/

Target Attys Cease & Desist Order for Directives -
http://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727.target_cease_and_desist.pdf

Target Employees' Web Site -
http://www.targetunion.org/

Vetrans Against Target Policies -
http://www.uppins.com/target.html

Wal Marts Approach to Shoplifting -
http://blog.wakeupwalmart.com/ufcw/2006/06/walmarts_latest_1.html

Want To Know Your IP Address?? -
http://www.lawrencegoetz.com/programs/ipinfo/

Web Site w/ forums for various retail chains, not very active, few members -
http://www.retail-worker.com/forum/index.php

29 Page Wal-Mart Crime Report
http://www.walmartcrimereport.com/report.pdf



* Who Looks At This Blog?

Topix