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.
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.
It is never proper to consume a store's product prior to paying. Well... up until now, that is.
Somewhere between childhood and now, personal responsibility flew the coop.
Did you read the article? She asked to keep her own juice (the preferred source of glucose by many doctors for their patients) and was told she couldn't. While at her register she felt a low blood sugar episode coming on, and took one of their juices, drank it, paid for it later, and then got fired.
So yes, she broke company policy by drinking before paying, the managers broke company policy and potentially federal law by no accommodating her disability and then firing her for dealing with her own potential medical emergency.
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.
We get complaints from customers about any employee eating anything on the sales floor. It does look unprofessional and is a no-no at most companies . Employees get a break every two hours so 'hunger pains' should not be an issue. Soda and juice should never be at a register, sticky if they spill and not worth the risk to mdse and the computers (registers), we allow bottled water with the pop up sport tops.
ADA requires reasonable accommodations, not any accommodation of the employees choice. They don't have to allow juice if they allow something else that is just as reasonable, like the glucose tablets or gels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpollen
The jury heard it all and decided the company did something egregiously wrong.
The jury did what people here are doing, thinking with their emotions leading them. OMG, fired over chump change, poor sick thing. Thinking big bad company and stupid supervisor who was MEAN, let's show them!
Not thinking that as a diabetic she probably should have a remedy handy at work at all times, taking responsibility by being prepared.
She made a request, so she must have been aware that such a situation was likely to arise, yet she was totally unprepared when it happened. Tablets are cheaper and easier than juice, how difficult would it have been to keep a bottle at work for just such emergencies?
My sister is a diabetic, I know the challenges. You don't go to work everyday, eight hours a day and 'hope' nothing bad happens when you have diabetes. You're playing roulette with your life when you do that.
We get complaints from customers about any employee eating anything on the sales floor. It does look unprofessional and is a no-no at most companies . Employees get a break every two hours so 'hunger pains' should not be an issue. Soda and juice should never be at a register, sticky if they spill and not worth the risk to mdse and the computers (registers), we allow bottled water with the pop up sport tops.
ADA requires reasonable accommodations, not any accommodation of the employees choice. They don't have to allow juice if they allow something else that is just as reasonable, like the glucose tablets or gels. The jury did what people here are doing, thinking with their emotions leading them. OMG, fired over chump change, poor sick thing. Thinking big bad company and stupid supervisor who was MEAN, let's show them!
Not thinking that as a diabetic she probably should have a remedy handy at work at all times, taking responsibility by being prepared.
She made a request, so she must have been aware that such a situation was likely to arise, yet she was totally unprepared when it happened. Tablets are cheaper and easier than juice, how difficult would it have been to keep a bottle at work for just such emergencies?
My sister is a diabetic, I know the challenges. You don't go to work everyday, eight hours a day and 'hope' nothing bad happens when you have diabetes. You're playing roulette with your life when you do that.
Having every employee bring a drink to the cash register might be a problem for a store.
Having a handful of employees who are diabetic bring that drink is not a major issue. Sticky cash registers can be cleaned. Customers are not going to stop coming to Dollar General or any other store because one day, one diabetic employee sipped orange juice from a cup while they were checking out.
Reasonable accommodation does not and should not always fall on the employee. It is a two way street. Sometimes, diabetics forget some of their supplies or they run out. Certainly some things that are claimed to be "reasonable accommodations" are not. For example, an employee that claimed their disability required them to be absent from work four out of every five days is not asking for reasonable accommodation. What was sought here though is clearly minor and reasonable accommodation. If it is not, I cannot imagine an accommodation that would be construed as "reasonable".
This case is really cut and dried. So much so, that I suspect that people who cannot see that simply oppose a statute like the ADA completely. The simple fact is that a business cannot do whatever it wants. It has to comply with the law--if it wants to remain in business.
The irony here is that Dollar General actually had a policy allowing diabetic employees to take a cup of fruit juice and keep it next to them at the cash register (so much for your argument about it ruining the work place). The problem was that this policy was not communicated to managers. This woman's manager was not aware of the policy.
I am sorry it took this much effort and cost to rectify this problem. However, Dollar General should never ever have fired this woman.
I have nothing against the lawsuit. I'm sympathetic to the trials of a diabetic. I'm glad to see the ADA having teeth and advocating the way it should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry
Sorry if this has already been posted but why was loss prevention involved if she paid for the juice right after drinking it?
As pointed out, the employee did not sue. She merely reported the infraction.
Her employer was blatantly breaking the law. Her manager took it into his own hands, against company policy to deny her her rights. Then he fired her for protecting herself in an emergency....She did pay for her drink.
As someone pointed out, who was she supposed to pay if she was the only cashier.
She didn't do anything morally wrong. The company did something extremely illegal. There are sanctions. It was decided that the infraction was so egregious that the penalty must be severe.
They asked for it and they deserved it.
As for glucose pills, I couldn't say, but it seems like she responds best to juice. She had asked for juice, not glucose pills by her station. She knows how to deal with her body and what it needs. It needed juice.
We don't know every fact but they have been examined. This was not a frivolous lawsuit. The woman reported to the agency who is in charge of enforcing the laws I believe. Lawful responsibilities were ignored, and a human life was compromised. They were asking for it and they got it.
I bet if Mr. Store Manager had reviewed the policies or had consulted a superior over the matter and asked how to proceed he would have been told to allow her to have to juice. They know the laws. Mr. local Manager is ignorant of what his own job requires him to do. He was badly trained or thickheaded and incapable of understanding a simple concept. He didn't know how to do his job. Training was remiss or he didn't think the law applied to him or his store.
The store hired a stupid manager who ignored his training. He did things his way and ignored the policies that were in place to accomodate an employee with a medical condition. It is not his call. It is not his choice. He does not own the dollar stores and he is not authorized to make upper management decisions like choosing to ignore federal law.
That is why they got in big trouble. They ignored the law. They did not think the law applied to them.
That is when you get in trouble. When you are well informed and you have lawyers to keep you legal but you hire ignorant, pompous and dangerous management.
That is a blatant disregard of health and human safety. It is against the law, and wasn't even nice.
This case is really cut and dried. So much so, that I suspect that people who cannot see that simply oppose a statute like the ADA completely. The simple fact is that a business cannot do whatever it wants. It has to comply with the law--if it wants to remain in business.
As I said my sister has diabetes, so I am not opposed to ADA at all. What I am opposed to is people who think that ADA means that employers must bend over to give them the accommodations the employee prefers.
Allowing the employee to keep medication with her in the form of tablets is a reasonable accommodation, so is keeping a cup of juice. But it's not up to the employee, it's up to the employer as to which accommodation is allowed.
If dollar general lets diabetic employees keep juice that's fine (but still a really stupid thing to do around a computerized register) and it's a shame they didn't communicate that to the store, but in principal it is still on an employee to use the accommodation allowed by the employer. Allowing employees to graze on store mdse is not a reasonable accommodation and not something the employee should have been relying on.
As I said my sister has diabetes, so I am not opposed to ADA at all. What I am opposed to is people who think that ADA means that employers must bend over to give them the accommodations the employee prefers.
Allowing the employee to keep medication with her in the form of tablets is a reasonable accommodation, so is keeping a cup of juice. But it's not up to the employee, it's up to the employer as to which accommodation is allowed.
If dollar general lets diabetic employees keep juice that's fine (but still a really stupid thing to do around a computerized register) and it's a shame they didn't communicate that to the store, but in principal it is still on an employee to use the accommodation allowed by the employer. Allowing employees to graze on store mdse is not a reasonable accommodation and not something the employee should have been relying on.
The accommodation requested was not unreasonable. The employer is not her healthcare provider and had no right to determine how she manages her blood sugar.
I would LOVE to read the transcript of this trial. An award of this size usually comes from a ****ed off jury.
Doubtless DG will appeal the verdict but unless there was a technical error...
Just wondering: does DG operate on a franchise business model?
The accommodation requested was not unreasonable. The employer is not her healthcare provider and had no right to determine how she manages her blood sugar.
The employer only has to make a reasonable accommodation, not the accommodation of the employees choice. Juice is not the only reasonable accommodation for diabetics. https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/accommodation.html
Is an employer required to provide the reasonable accommodation that the individual wants?
The employer may choose among reasonable accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation is effective.(35) Thus, as part of the interactive process, the employer may offer alternative suggestions for reasonable accommodations and discuss their effectiveness in removing the workplace barrier that is impeding the individual with a disability.
If there are two possible reasonable accommodations, and one costs more or is more burdensome than the other, the employer may choose the less expensive or burdensome accommodation as long as it is effective (i.e., it would remove a workplace barrier, thereby providing the individual with an equal opportunity to apply for a position, to perform the essential functions of a position, or to gain equal access to a benefit or privilege of employment). Similarly, when there are two or more effective accommodations, the employer may choose the one that is easier to provide. In either situation, the employer does not have to show that it is an undue hardship to provide the more expensive or more difficult accommodation. If more than one accommodation is effective, "the preference of the individual with a disability should be given primary consideration. However, the employer providing the accommodation has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations."(36)
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.
