A diabetic gets fired over a $1.69 (plus tax) drink and Dollar General must now pay her $277,656
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure it is. That's how you get corrective measures implemented. Business tend to perk up and fly right when you hit them with a monetary fee.
I recently sat at a diner...drank my tea...and when done. I paid for it!
It was a business...I didn't leave without paying. Neither did this lady. Bravo for the judge!
If the cashier isn't allowed to keep her purse with her at the register but must store it in the break room (a common policy), then how does having a fully-stocked purse help her?
Blame here lies with the employer, who violated the chain's own written policy, not the employee.
Pockets, man, pockets!
No pockets? Stick some sugar in your freaking socks.
Can't she leave the purse and bring a juice box with her?
That is what her employer wasn't allowing her to do. No juice allowed at the register! (Which was a violation of both the ADA and the company's own written policies.)
The whole mess could have been avoided had the employee been permitted a juice box or a cup of juice in a spill-resistant cup.
So, she was basically stealing from her employer, and she sues....and wins?!?
People still do not get it.
1: She was not stealing from the company. She drank it under emergency conditions before she passed out, and when recovered to the point she could paid for the juice. It was a case of get that juice down, before she passes out and has to be taken to the hospital for treatment or to the morgue because she died.
2: For many diabetics, sugar candy, or those pills for diabetics do not work well enough, and take too long to work. For those Juice is the only safe alternative. The corporation she worked for, realized that some diabetics need juice available to survive and company written policy allowed for it to be kept at the work station and used when needed. The manager disregarded the company policy when it was forbidden for her to keep the juice at the work station.
3: It was the loss manager for the company that fired her, to get her away from the company to try to avoid a law suite. Their job is to look for ways to keep the company from being sued, and to work out problems. The loss manager was the one that really accelerated the problem, and this was one big reason the award was so high.
4: The amount awarded was the EEOC (federal agency charged with protecting the workers in situations like this). She made her complaint to them, they investigated the situation, and held a hearing and made the award. They are not swayed as a jury is in court, but judgments are made based on their investigation. They rarely make such an award, but in this case it was so blatant they hit the company hard. We do not know of any complications in health this woman may have had, having been kept from getting the juice when she needed it. The EEOC would.
5: The company appealed the award in a federal appeals court, and after looking at the facts, upheld the award.
6: Some diabetics can use pills or a couple of hard candies to get over sugar lows. Others these do not work. Juice in an amount of 4 or more ounces, gives them the lift in blood sugar they need to keep from going into a coma. It works faster and better than any other alternative, and for many is the only thing that works fast enough in case of a low swing in blood sugar. It needs to be pure fruit juice such as orange or grape juice. Some have said she could use powdered juice. That is not really juice but artificial flavor and some sugar made to taste like juice, and does not work for them.
I have never see so many as on this thread, that had no compassion or feeling for the woman. Diabetics need to work and support themselves just like other people. When she is a cashier at a dollar store like this one, it shows how desperate she was to find work. She under her legal rights, asked to keep a container with juice in it at her work station so in case of going into diabetic shock she could use the juice to stop it from happening. She may never need to use it, but needed it there in case of a problem coming up.
This was denied her by the store manager, who did so not following company written policy, and federal law.
She got to the juice area, grabbed a container of juice, and drank some to save going into diabetic coma, or death. Then paid for it after she had drank it. She did not have time, to take it back to a register and pay for it prior to drinking it. She was in a very serious health break down condition, and it may have saved her life.
The company sent in a loss manager, and he fired her to get her out of the store, attempting to keep the store from being liable, using the excuse to fire her for drinking it before paying for it.
She complained to the EEOC and they after a thorough investigation found the company in gross violation of this woman's rights under federal law and they made he award because of he seriousness of the violation and placing this woman at serious health risk and/or possible death.
The company appealed it to the federal courts, and the court upheld the verdict.
She did pay. She drank, paid, and explained what she did to her manager. She was not a thief.
People come on here to make judgments about others (including me). In this case the woman is accused of theft. How many people are participating on this forum on company time?
I don't know the answer to that, but I know it is a common practice to 'steal' company time.
It seems to me that people are quick to condemn this woman because of her class. She is working at a Dollar General. She works hard for low wages. Because she is a low earner, she is treated like a person who is not deserving of respect.
Not by everybody, but the fact that she is a Dollar General employee makes a difference in how she is perceived. She didn't pay for her juice before she drank it. The incident she was fired over did not create a 'loss control' discrepency. She was treated like something you scrape off the bottom of your shoe and exterminate.
If she was treated with respect and dignity, this never would have been a problem.
I just read the above post. It said the loss control manager fired her to avoid a lawsuit? The article I read stated that no malice was found on the part of the management. It was due to lack of training. I would be interested to know if malice was truly involved. Correcting the problem would have been a cheaper solution.
Last edited by Veronicka; 09-26-2016 at 11:09 PM..
That is what her employer wasn't allowing her to do. No juice allowed at the register! (Which was a violation of both the ADA and the company's own written policies.)
The whole mess could have been avoided had the employee been permitted a juice box or a cup of juice in a spill-resistant cup.
I would bring one to the register with me anyway. Hide it and if/when caught, show them the laws that allow it and if they fire her then file a suit.
"Because they told me I can't!" is not a good reason when 1. you actually CAN and 2. your health is at risk.
I would bring one to the register with me anyway. Hide it and if/when caught, show them the laws that allow it and if they fire her then file a suit.
"Because they told me I can't!" is not a good reason when 1. you actually CAN and 2. your health is at risk.
No, Dollar General is accountable to follow federal laws when operating their business. If they had done their job right in the first place, the employee would not been put in that situation in the first place where they have to choose 1) Keep the juice, risk getting caught and fired 2) Get rid of the juice, risk getting an attack.
Want to blame someone for "jacking up the prices" because of the payout, blame Dollar General. They fired someone illegally. They tried to bring it to court lost, maybe they could have settled out of court for less. Now, they have to pay over 250k, plus they have to pay their lawyers, plus the negative press, now they'll be under the microscope in the future.
She didn't take a proactive stance concerning her own health. That's all.
But now thanks to people who think it's OUR responsibility to cater to those who refuse to do what they need to do, this woman is rich... and the Dollar General will be upping their prices just a tad.
Great. Just great.
Boy, there sure are some perfect people on CD. You must tell me how you have accomplished this since you have apparently never forgotten anything or made a mistake.
In this case, the employee did her due diligence and the company's own policies supported her, but because of DG's poor training of their management, she was denied. You can blabber on about packs of sugar and tablets all you want, but multiple people in this thread have pointed out that juice is the preferred method of delivering sugar.
And give me a break - If the prices at Dollar General go up because of a paltry 277k then you can feel free to stop shopping there.
I've never agreed with 'frivolous' lawsuits and people who make tons of money off companies for stupid crap, but this one was CLEARLY the fault of Dollar General and they should have to pay for it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
