In 2003, four men were unhappy with the service they got at the photo lab at a Walgreens drugstore in Reno, Nevada. They claimed that their photographs weren’t developed properly, and that when they complained to the clerk, he yelled at them, walked away, and slammed a door behind him. So they did what anybody would do in that situation: they sued Walgreens for $2.5 million.

Why was a customer service issue, over what was probably a $10 store bill, worth millions of dollars? Well, the four men, who were black, claimed that the clerk shouted a racial slur as he walked away, and — in the words of the plaintiffs’ lawyer — “in our system, money equals justice.” The clerk acknowledged slamming the door and walking off the job, but denied the slur. It took a jury less than an hour to find for Walgreens. (AP, Feb. 14)

Just in case the jury wasn’t convinced by the racial slur argument, the plaintiffs tried to concoct some argument about “workplace violence” — an argument which is expected to provide the basis for their appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court. The plaintiffs argue that the judge improperly excluded some evidence of past demonstrations of temper by the clerk — but since the only “violence” the plaintiffs identified was the slamming door, it’s not clear what any of this has to do with a legal cause of action. Once again, though, this case presented arguments that internal company policies constitute grounds for liability:

Their lawsuit said the company’s management knew, or should have known, that McCord had a history of problems with his temper and that he should not have been put in a customer service position.

“There’s a lot of conduct Mr. McCord engaged in in the workplace that violates (Walgreens) policy,” said Ian Silverberg, one of the lawyers representing the four Texas men.

Silverberg said that, among other things, the appeal would challenge rulings by Berry that prohibited the jury from hearing some information about McCord’s temper, as well as other cases of discrimination lawsuits brought against Walgreens in other states.

He said McCord’s temper was especially relevant because it showed he had been in violation of Walgreens’ policy against violence in the workplace but never reprimanded.

If you’re wondering how the clerk kicking a box in a storeroom several years earlier — even if it did violate company policy — would entitle these plaintiffs to $2.5 million, well, so am I. Fortunately for Walgreens, a jury agreed… after four years of litigation.