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.
Dollar Tree is a dollar store. Dollar General is supposed to be a discount store. I don't really shop there as it doesn't seem prices are better.
I get that in the rush she didn't pay for her drink and it's unfortunate. It sucks to need accommodation but have to with a clueless supervisor who's not helping. I wonder how long it took for her to get around paying for it, especially since there's an inventory talk.
Isn't everything in Dollar General supposed to be $1...not $1.67?
No. Dollar General is not a Dollar store but supposed to be low priced on what they carry.
Quote:
Agree Javacoffee, too. This employee should have always had her own glucose available if her sugar crashed. Her health was her responsibility not her employer's responsibility. Good grief, the legal system is screwed up.
Quote:
The diabetic cashier should have been more prepared... such as bringing her own emergency glucose in her purse. She received a ridiculous amount of money for consuming the store's product before paying for it, which boils down to her being stupid and irresponsible.
Can't either of you read. The woman had notified her supervisor she needed to keep juice at her cash register in case of an attack and needed it. The manager refused to allow her to do so. See the next quote, about this situation, which is right.
Quote:
The story goes like this. Back in September 2014, an insulin-dependent diabetic cashier in Dollar General’s Maryville, Tenn. store told her supervisor she needed to keep juice near the cash register in case of a hypoglycemic attack. According to testimony at the trial, the supervisor did not allow employees to do this, although the company has a policy that would allow it for those need.
When a woman was suffering from an attack, all she could do was grab something to ward it off. And she took a drink before she paid for it, as she did not have time to do so. There was no question that she would not have paid for it, after getting the attack under control.
Her having to take desperate measures and grab something to ward off the attack, is reasonable under the circumstances.
If the store managers had allowed her to keep juice by her register in case of an eminent attack, there was no problem.
The EEOC set the punishment to the store to wake them up, and stop putting employees at health risk with the possibility of death. The court, just verified how bad the store had failed to work under the ADA laws, and make it possible for an employee to be able to handle a health problem that is controllable by keeping juice at her register. Then the store did the next thing, which was to fire the woman who had a very serious problem happen, due to the store management.
I am a diabetic. If a store manager had done that to me I would have made him very unhappy after I finished drinking his god damned soda.
the only way some businesses will ever hire sane supervisors is by getting fined some really big numbers. I figure this fine was low by a factor of 10 or so.
I get why they don't want store staff consuming drinks prior to purchase. It's because a staffer can always claim they were going to pay for it but just hadn't done it yet.
Any respectable employee wouldnt steal from them so thier argument is stupid!
The argument is not stupid. There are laws and the employee informed the employer of her needs. She is not required to use special language to communicate these needs. She needs to say "I need juice because I have a disability that is covered under the ADA" or she just needs to say "I am diabetic, so I need juice by my register"...She informed her employer and her employer said "No, we will no accommodate your special needs even though that is the law. We will deny you your rights because we are stupid dumbheads"...
That is why they got in trouble. They were informed that there was a special need and they denied reasonable accommodations.
On the juice day, it seems as if she couldn't wait any longer and she grabbed a juice before she paid for it. She claimed she intended to pay but she needed something fast I assume. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt.
Have you ever been shopping and had an item in your cart that you ate, or your child ate before you paid for it? People do that and they aren't arrested for shoplifting because they do pay at the register. People also graze on grapes and that is theft, but people seem to think it's ok.
The point is, she shouldn't have been fired, since she was, then mountains were made out of molehills because she was not treated with respect and dignity. Her health issue was dismissed as unimportant and her rights were ignored.
Even if there weren't laws in place to protect the rights of disabled people, an employer should use some common sense and treat his or her employees well. Talk to them and find out what the problem is and how to fix it. Show compassion and understanding and listen. If you do those simple things then you will have loyalty and respect in return, not big lawsuits.
Even if she wasn't diabetic, what's the big deal about having a drink to sip on throughout the day? Why should a person have to go for hours drinking nothing when it can easily be right there and doesn't take 5 seconds to sip?
"Because that's the rules"--sorry, that's not good enough. Stop making stupid rules and then people won't break them.
Heck I've done cashiering, and not only have I had sodas nearby, I've even had food, things like chicken nuggets. So what? Do people really think that cashiers should have to go for HOURS eating and drinking nothing? As a customer, so long as the cashier isn't slurping like a cow, I see no harm in someone munching on food as they go along. If it helps someone do their job better because they don't have hunger pains distracting them, what's the big deal? Cashiers get hungry and thirsty too.
Quarter million seems excessive, but in general, I applaud this verdict.
Allow me:
It is excessive, and I don't applaud 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.
