I never cease to be amazed at how some companies have to be pushed, prodded or legally compelled to do the right thing. Here are two cases in point:

A Massachusetts jury this week awarded almost $2 million to a former Wal-Mart pharmacist who had claimed she was fired after complaining about being paid less than her male counterparts. The woman, who had worked as a pharmacist for Wal-Mart in Pittsfield, Massachusetts, for more than 10 years, said in court that she was fired because she asked to be paid the same bonus as male pharmacists. Wal-Mart paid her the bonus, then fired her two weeks later, claiming she was dismissed for failing to keep the pharmacy secure. The jury didn’t buy Wal-Mart’s story, in part because the female pharmacist had received “rave reviews” in her employment evaluations and was described as “maintaining the highest levels of professional conduct” in her most recent review.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled Monday, June 18, that a fired worker was still entitled to unemployment insurance despite the fact that he was terminated for swearing at his supervisor. The 56-year-old worker, who washed cars at a Minneapolis-area auto dealer, was told by his supervisor that another manager wanted him to pick up cigarette butts on the lot. The worker, who had come to work despite having the flu, said that he was busy and that the other manager could go “[expletive] himself.” The worker was summarily fired and later was denied his unemployment claim. He appealed the decision. The three-judge appeals panel ruled that he was eligible for $7,000 in unemployment insurance “because his conduct was a single incident that did not have a significant adverse impact on the employer.”

So, what do these two cases have in common? From my view, both show how companies all too often resort to pettiness rather than just doing the right thing.