Draft FCB cooperated with Walmart by providing copies of the e-mail communications between its employees and Roehm and Womack. However, Draft FCB also released a statement indicating that the employee who was communicating with Womack about employment for the two had no authority to negotiate such employment contracts and even lacked any authority to engage in business development.

Once Walmart counterclaimed, Ms. Roehm fired back with her own allegations, ones that basically argued that "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," a timeless legal principle in these battles of will. She alleged that Lee Scott, Walmart's CEO, enjoyed favorable prices from Irwin Jacobs, a supplier of Walmart's, on everything from jewelry to boats and that Mr. Scott's son, Eric, has worked for Mr. Jacobs for years. \({ }^{60}\) Her allegation was that Mr. Scott was not fired for these conflicts and, ergo, she was dismissed wrongfully or inconsistently for her alleged breach of Walmart's conflicts policies. Walmart's code of ethics states that employees are not to have social relationships with suppliers if those relationships create even the appearance of impropriety. \({ }^{61}\)

Although Walmart and Mr. Jacobs dismissed the allegations as false and outrageous, Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Scott acknowledged that their families have vacationed together and that Mr. Jacobs attended Mr. Scott's daughter's wedding. Mr. Jacobs has also stated that when the two are out together, Mr. Scott always pays and will not allow Mr. Jacobs to pay for even a lunch or other meal. Mr. Jacobs also says, "I swear to God Lee never called me about [putting Eric to work]." \({ }^{62}\)

Less than a year following its filing, Julie Roehm ended her wrongful termination suit against Walmart, and Walmart agreed not to pursue its claims against Ms. Roehm. Ms. Roehm also noted that some of the allegations she made about Irwin Jacobs, one of Walmart's suppliers, were inaccurate. Ms. Roehm said she was dropping her suit because it was financially draining and because she had been given information that indicated her allegations about Mr. Jacobs were not true. Walmart indicated it was satisfied with the withdrawal of the suit, would not pursue the matter further, and was pleased to be able to move forward. Ms. Roehm did not receive any money in the dismissal settlement.....................

 Discussion Questions
1. How does this case relate to the phrase "tone at the top," and what does "tone at the top" mean as it relates to ethics and ethical culture in a company?
2. What problems do inconsistencies in enforcing rules present to a company? How does inconsistency relate to due process?