This from bizjournals.com:
According to CEO Ed Stack, 62 employees quit working for Dick’s Sporting Goods over the retailer’s decision to stop selling assault-style weapons, announced in February.
No biggie, as far as Stack is concerned. You have to break a few eggs if you want to make an anti-gun rights omelet.
We anticipated that there would be some people that would leave. We’ve got 40,0000 employees, and 2,500, or 2,6000 (sic) people working at our corporate headquarters,” said Stack, of the Findlay-based company. “We’re a cross-section of the country. We knew people would be upset.”
Of course, employees quitting wasn’t the only reaction to the anti-gun policies Dick’s Sporting Goods put in place (dropping scary black rifles, raising the long gun sales age to 21 and actively lobbying for more gun control laws) at their stores after Parkland. As we mentioned last month, the company’s same store sales took a hit, too. And, given the backlash by gun owners, the company is experimenting with dropping all of their gun, ammo and hunting gear.
While the move hadn’t affected the company’s stock price in the intervening months, the recent admission that the anti-gun policies had, in fact, hurt same store sales was finally reflected in the markets.
The company’s stock fell more than four percent due to J.P. Morgan’s projections for the sporting goods store.
“Looking forward, gross margin-driven upside appears less probable given 3Q’s performance, changing comparisons, and rising inventory levels,” said analyst Christopher Horvers. “The latter appears to be a theme across retail (which can be risky in the seasonal apparel world).”
Although the company had reported better-than-expected sales for the third quarter, top executives still admitted that their growth was impacted by the decision during a call with investors.
Oh, and yesterday the company settled an age discrimination suit brought against them by a 20-year-old Oregon man to whom Dick’s refused to sell a gun after the new policy was put in place. Terms weren’t disclosed.
Jim Oleske, a professor at Lewis and Clark Law School specializing in anti-discrimination law, said people settle for a variety of reasons, but he thinks Watson had a good case against Dick’s.
“From the text of the statute, it looked like a very strong case,” said Oleske.
Oleske said it’s unusual that Dick’s hasn’t changed its policy as a result of the settlement.
“Any other individual could go into any one of their stores, attempt to make a purchase and if they’re turned away bring a lawsuit,” he said. “The question is, why is Dick’s settling?”
Hmm. It’s a mystery
When your primary goals are corporate virtue signaling and currying favor with politically like-minded activists and the media rather than serving your customers and maximizing return, this is the result. You might think the company’s shareholders would have something to say about that.
Know any 18-20-year-olds who want to try to buy a gun?