|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,367 |
Quote:
They said they had a zero-tolerance policy
As soon as I hear this, I know they are complete morons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
You think the manager cost wal-greens millions?
Perhaps you mean in lost sales - but there's no way you mean she should win millions in a lawsuit, right?
We still haven't heard anyone's side but hers. Doesn't mean she's right or wrong - it just means this hasn't been settled yet.
As for the eeoc suing, or helping? Doesn't carry much weight really. She could probably line up 1000 lawyers that would take the case and only charge her a percent of the winnings, IF she wins in court. Lawyers are like sharks smelling blood - only better.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Quote:
They said they had a zero-tolerance policy
As soon as I hear this, I know they are complete morons.
Not necessarily. See, they HAVE to state they have a zero tolerance policy. If they don't, then when joe blow gets hired in, steals on his first day - he can say "they never said they'd fire me for stealing."........and joe blow would win a lawsuit.
It's a sad state when companies have pre-emptively cover their ass - but it is what this country has become.
I'm making no statement about the lady that got fired. I'm just stating that if a company doesn't have a zero tolerance policy, they are only setting themselves up for trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
I think that she has a better than reasonable chance of winning.
If she was in physical distress from a legitimate, diagnosed, medical condition, then the employer would be out of line in firing her, especially given that she did try to pay for the chips as soon as she was able to leave her post. No employee can be expected to die on the job. There has to be reasonable accommodation for an employee in legitimate physical distress.
For example, a cashier bleeding from a wound cannot be expected to remain at their register, even if company policy says that they must never leave their register unattended. There is reasonable accommodation, even within company policy "absolutes". If she has been diagnosed with diabetes, and the rest played out as stated, then Walgreen's will lose this case. No employer can expect an employee to lay down and die, no matter what company policy is.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
I think that she has a better than reasonable chance of winning.
If she was in physical distress from a legitimate, diagnosed, medical condition, then the employer would be out of line in firing her, especially given that she did try to pay for the chips as soon as she was able to leave her post. No employee can be expected to die on the job. There has to be reasonable accommodation for an employee in legitimate physical distress.
For example, a cashier bleeding from a wound cannot be expected to remain at their register, even if company policy says that they must never leave their register unattended. There is reasonable accommodation, even within company policy "absolutes". If she has been diagnosed with diabetes, and the rest played out as stated, then Walgreen's will lose this case. No employer can expect an employee to lay down and die, no matter what company policy is.
I realize I will be coming across as defending wal greens - and that isn't the case. I'm not defending the lady either.
However - a company HAS to have a zero tolerance policy on theft. Was the lady thieving? I don't think so.
But for anyone to think this lady should get "rich" is just stupid. Yeah, I'm using common sense here - not politically correct bull.
IF things are as they seem - they offer her her job back, plus $20,000 or so. End of story. If she doesn't want to work there anymore, fine. She gets $50,000 and she can find a job as a cashier somewhere else with the knowledge that wal greens will state to any prospective employer "hey, we wrongfully fired her - offered her her job back, she didn't want it, and we can't blame her. Her is her employee record. We recommend her.
No need for millions to be discussed - that's stupid.
But, when attorneys get involved all that happens is money is wasted, at the end of the day they get rich. The business loses, and she loses 20 to 50%.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
You think the manager cost wal-greens millions?
Perhaps you mean in lost sales - but there's no way you mean she should win millions in a lawsuit, right?
We still haven't heard anyone's side but hers. Doesn't mean she's right or wrong - it just means this hasn't been settled yet.
As for the eeoc suing, or helping? Doesn't carry much weight really. She could probably line up 1000 lawyers that would take the case and only charge her a percent of the winnings, IF she wins in court. Lawyers are like sharks smelling blood - only better.
All I said was that that manager cost Walgreens millions.. And what I mean by that is that she will win and will receive millions.
I never said that's what I think is right.. Just that I think that's what will happen,
As for what I think she should receive,, back pay, her job back, (with Cost of living increases), Benefits reinstatment.. meaning that if during the last three years, if she had medical issues that would have been covered by her insurance but weren't because of her being terminated, then they should pay those. (if she got insurance elsewhere, they of course subrogate it)
As for damages beyond that,... I don't know.., couple of hundred grand maybe.. But certainly something..
I bet it doesn't get to court.. my guess is that walgreens will settle it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
But in a case like this there are usually several layers of damages paid to the plaintiff.
Punitive damages are often awarded when a company uses willful disregard for the rights of its employee(s). This could fall under that definition.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,186 |
Sure every business has zero tolerance for stealing. But that doesn't mean you have to follow the letter of the law on every incident. You take each case on an individual basis. It's obvious this lady wasn't stealing, so to me the worker did nothing wrong to get fired. The manager must be a complete moron to even consider firing her. Who knows, maybe he/she didn't like the woman, and had it out for her.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,826 |
Quote:
Sure every business has zero tolerance for stealing. But that doesn't mean you have to follow the letter of the law on every incident. You take each case on an individual basis. It's obvious this lady wasn't stealing, so to me the worker did nothing wrong to get fired. The manager must be a complete moron to even consider firing her. Who knows, maybe he/she didn't like the woman, and had it out for her.
Agreed. That is very possible.
Keep in mind we don't know all the facts of the case. I would have to believe wal greens has video of this, wouldn't you? Granted - if the lawsuit is being filed 3 yrs. after the incident they might not have it. (it is 3 years later, isn't it? maybe I have that number wrong?)
Anyway, like I said earlier - all we've heard so far is the plaintiff's side if I'm not mistaken.
Perhaps we should let the courts decide the outcome. I don't give a rip either way. If she was wrongfully wronged, she should win. Not millions. Not even hundreds of thousands. But if she was wronged, she should win the lawsuit. Let's lit the jury decide. (and just about every jury in the country goes against "big" business, so she has that going for her).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
Quote:
Quote:
This was at Walgreens? A pharmacy? If it was a hypoglycemic emergency, there were much better options than a bag of chips. They have glucose tabs, glucagon injections, energy bars, gatorade, OJ, etc.....all of which would work better than chips.
I don't know if you are diabetic or not Jfan,.,, But when this hits you, you don't think clearly..
Nothing like knocking a person when you haven't walked a mile in thier shoes. 
Fist of all, you don't know if I've walked in her shoes. Second of all, I said that being in a pharmacy better options were available. I didn't knock Obama, so loosen your panties. 
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
My aunt used to get to a point, rather rapidly, where she became almost incoherent and would have no idea what she was doing. My uncle would literally have to force OJ or other such sugary food down her throat.
I have a friend with the condition that hits him often enough he carries a lunch bag with food everywhere he goes. Crackers, fruit, a bit of candy and such. Even though he's that aware of his condition and is prepared for an episode he tells me that sometimes he notices he isn't feeling well but it doesn't occur to him that he needs to eat something. He'll puzzle over the condition as it gets slowly gets worse. Then, at one point he'll realize what is probably wrong and will quickly get a bit to eat. He tells me he finds it incredible that he doesn't figure that out at the onset.
I have personally force-fed two different people in the throws of that condition. One was a diabetic alcoholic who nodded out, (as he often did when drunk), at one New Year's Eve gathering. When he was served a plate of food he was unresponsive. I pushed mashed potatoes into his mouth and worked his jaw around until he perked up and took that plate and ate. Some in the room found it funny. But had he been alone at the time who knows how serious that would have become. People die in that situation. I know I shook for a while afterwards.
Another time, as we set down for lunch, a co-worker slowly slumped in her seat. She was fully awake and functional just moments before. Knowing she was diabetic and suspecting she was slipping for that reason, and having our lunches with us, I peeled a banana and got her to start chewing a bite of that. She responded really quickly and was embarrassed at the ordeal but thankful that someone knew what to do.
During an episode like that one is not thinking clearly. As Damonshot says, it's a serious condition and to flippantly say that she should have thought of a better option than chips or that she should have paid for them first is just not familiar with what is happening to a diabetic at that moment. And I'm sure that the onset is different for different people.
If I owned the store that stinkin' bag of chips would be the least of my concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Fist of all, you don't know if I've walked in her shoes.
You either obviously haven't or your episodes come on very slowly and it gives you plenty of time to think it all out and make a conscious decision as to the best remedy for your condition.
Of the three people of my experience that I mentioned above one of them would likely have eventually come to a good decision as he usually does. But for the other two it comes on too quickly to think it out. The drunken dude, when not drunk, would likely have asked for something to eat. The girl went out in a matter of seconds and I'm sure with diabetics that there is every type in between.
That thing about better options does no good to you if you are unable to think of them.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,144 |
I work in a hospital and deal with diabetic crises on occasion. I've seen many patients with a BS in the 40's. Our protocol is glucose tabs, OJ, glucagon IV or injection if they can't take oral for some reason. At home, people are told simple carbs, of which chips are...but with the fat content they are slower to act. I'm just saying there were better options in that pharmacy. If you read my post, I didn't accuse her of stealing or take sides in this matter.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
I do agree but I find it really strange she grabbed chips...
She was working as a cashier.. maybe she had people in line and chips was all she could reach? I don't know.
What I find odd is... why is the federal government suing Walgreens? Why isn't this woman suing on her own for wrongful discharge?
and since Walgreens declines to comment, this article is written entirely from her side so we aren't hearing anything about THEIR reasons for doing this.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,246 |
Quote:
why is the federal government suing Walgreens
Violating the Americans with Disabilities Act?---assuming she truly is a diabetic and not a liar.
As a supervisor myself, I take pride in running a shift that is safe and healthy. There is no bigger blow than having to call an ambulance for an incident that is can be easily avoided and then having to explain to my bosses how and why.
Zero tolerance policies are absurd. What is going to happen is that Walgreens will have to pay her at least back pay plus damages plus whatever else the feds slap on them so you have to ask yourself will it all be worth it over a two dollar bag of chips?
Two dollars versus $$$ from a settlement?
If I was her boss I'd take the hit on the bag o' chips and sleep with a clear conscience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This was at Walgreens? A pharmacy? If it was a hypoglycemic emergency, there were much better options than a bag of chips. They have glucose tabs, glucagon injections, energy bars, gatorade, OJ, etc.....all of which would work better than chips.
I don't know if you are diabetic or not Jfan,.,, But when this hits you, you don't think clearly..
Nothing like knocking a person when you haven't walked a mile in thier shoes.
Fist of all, you don't know if I've walked in her shoes. Second of all, I said that being in a pharmacy better options were available. I didn't knock Obama, so loosen your panties.
Obama?,, what in the hell are you talking about..
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
It will be interesting to hear when she actually paid for the chips.
Was it before or after they confronted her about the chips? Was she employing the "Wimpy" scenario, and going to pay for them on Tuesday, they confronted her and then she paid?
If she paid for them prior to being confronted and before she left the location from her shift, how did this become an issue to begin with? Even with a zero tolerance policy in place, wouldn't she have to leave the location prior to it becoming actual theft? I've certainly seen people consume an item at a grocery store and take an empty package to the check out line, that isn't theft.
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
It will be interesting to hear when she actually paid for the chips.
Was it before or after they confronted her about the chips? Was she employing the "Wimpy" scenario, and going to pay for them on Tuesday, they confronted her and then she paid?
If she paid for them prior to being confronted and before she left the location from her shift, how did this become an issue to begin with? Even with a zero tolerance policy in place, wouldn't she have to leave the location prior to it becoming actual theft? I've certainly seen people consume an item at a grocery store and take an empty package to the check out line, that isn't theft.
Quote:
Hernandez said she paid for the chips as soon as she could leave her cashier's post at the South San Francisco drugstore. She said she tried to explain her actions to Walgreens, but the company fired her
Sounds to me like she paid for them as soon as possible, but that's just guessing.
But again, 18 years of service to Walgreens and nothing in her personel file to suggest she's anything but a decent employee.
I'm going with the person that fired her is an idiot.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
There ya go . How easy was that ! ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284
1st String
|
|
1st String
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 284 |
Quote:
IF things are as they seem - they offer her her job back, plus $20,000 or so. End of story. If she doesn't want to work there anymore, fine. She gets $50,000 and she can find a job as a cashier somewhere else with the knowledge that wal greens will state to any prospective employer "hey, we wrongfully fired her - offered her her job back, she didn't want it, and we can't blame her. Her is her employee record. We recommend her.
No need for millions to be discussed - that's stupid.
But, when attorneys get involved all that happens is money is wasted, at the end of the day they get rich. The business loses, and she loses 20 to 50%.
Sure that sounds nice, but it ignores a lot of factors going on in the background. Why would she want to go back to Walgreens after this? Why would they want to hire her again? If they don't, should the court force them? Then what keeps them from terminating her contract at a later date? Should the court prescribe a period of time during which she can't be fired? How much time is sufficient?
You talk about businesses being harmed by these lawsuits, but I'd wager our system of damages places less of a burden on companies than an alternative system in which judges tell them how to operate their businesses through court orders.
![[Linked Image from i26.tinypic.com]](http://i26.tinypic.com/30vow7m.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
I think you guys are forgetting this lady was at will employee. There was no union at least no mention of one so therefore as long as she was fired for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason Walgreens is fine. If WalGreens does really have a zero tolerance policy and can point to other employees who were fired then they will win the lawsuit cause this lady was at will employee. At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can break the relationship with no liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union). Under this legal doctrine: “ any hiring is presumed to be "at will"; that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals "for good cause, or bad cause, or no cause at all," and the employee is equally free to quit, strike, or otherwise cease work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
At Will cannot supersede the Americans With Disabilities Act.
If this woman was fired because of a legitimate disability in any way at all, then that is illegal, and Walgreen's would be liable.
She would also be eligible for back pay or compensation if she was denied unemployment because she was considered discharged "with cause".
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 880 |
Just replying in general....what if there is more to this story like the employee's weight?
What if she was terribly obese? Some eat themselves into Diabetes.
Also, she knew she was diabetic, why didn't she have something with her? I think that is irresponsible as well.
Hate to see someone lose their job after 18 years but there HAS to be more to this story.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
Anyone can forget something one day. She said that she usually had some candy on her and she just forgot it that day.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
I think you guys are forgetting this lady was at will employee.
Has absolutly nothing to do with it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Quote:
I think you guys are forgetting this lady was at will employee.
Has absolutly nothing to do with it.
It has everything to do with it. Look she was fired cause she stole something. When you take something off a shelf without paying for it then you consume it...that's theft. Theft is a legitimate non discriminatory reason to fire someone. No there were extenuating circumstances but in the eyes of the law it won't matter. The lady was at will employee who was fired for theft.
I'm not saying its right or wrong but I'm telling you the law. If Walgreen has a true zero tolerance policy on what she did her case is sunk.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Really Loki,, it has nothing to do with it at all., Employment At Will isn't what this was all about.
Nothing to do with it.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,349 |
Quote:
But why a bag of chips? How would a bag of chips help her condition? They are not exactly high in sugar and not filled with much other nutrition. A bag of chips and helping a diabetic does not compute to me, but I am not diabetic. Can someone here shed some more light on this for me?
The term sugar is not really correct, the term should be carb, a potato is a starch that is very high in carbs. When a diabetic refers to "sugar" it doesnt mean actual granulated sugar.Though actual granulated sugar is a very simple carb that will raise your blood sugar quickly.
KING
You may be in the drivers seat but God is holding the map. #GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
Really Loki,, it has nothing to do with it at all., Employment At Will isn't what this was all about.
Nothing to do with it.
Obviously you have no idea what the law is then
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
She is suing under the ADA. That is a federal law that supersedes every single state law. (including "At Will employment")
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Quote:
She is suing under the ADA. That is a federal law that supersedes every single state law. (including "At Will employment")
I will try to explain this one more time...Let's try bold:
Okay she was at will employee..Check. Did she steal product belonging to her employee..Check. Does employer have a zero tolerance policy against said act..Check. Does Employer have a non-discriminatory reason for firing an at will employee...Check.
If an employee steals something that is a non discriminatory reason for firing someone. An at will employee only requires 1 non discriminatory reason and they are covered by the law. Go read some case law if you don't believe me. All Walgreens has to prove is that they do have a zero tolerance policy and they are not going to lose the suit...I wouldn't be surprised if the defendant wasn't granted a summary judgement.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,510 |
However, if the person's choice was obeying the rule, or dying, then they cannot be expected to follow the rule.
If the rule is that a cashier cannot leave their register while on duty, and a tornado rips through the store, the cashier cannot be fired for leaving his/her register to seek safety without securing his/her drawer. There is always an expectation that a rule will not cause harm to an employee. If it does, then the question becomes, did the employee have the ability to comply with the rule without being harmed. If not, then the employee will win the case.
It would be like having an employee running some sort of assembler, and there is a rule that the machine must never be turned off. If his arm gets caught, does he get fired if he turns the machine off before his arm is ripped off?
A person in a wheelchair cannot be fired for sitting down on the job, even if the company has a rule against it. A person who suffers a narcoleptic attack cannot be fired for sleeping on the job, even if the company has a rule against it.
If this case is as it was laid out here, then she will likely win. I saw cases like this from time to time in the restaurant magazines that I got when I was managing a restaurant. No matter what the rule, you cannot expect an employee to be harmed as the result of a rule. If they have anything that falls under the Americans with Disabilities Act, then you have to make sure that the rules will not cause them harm.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
Quote:
Really Loki,, it has nothing to do with it at all., Employment At Will isn't what this was all about.
Nothing to do with it.
Obviously you have no idea what the law is then
I'm in the HR business Loki,, I know EXACTLY what the law is.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Then you need a refresher course my friend cause I don't care if you're black, asian, blind, diabetic, or missing limbs or a combination of all minorities protected by Civil Rights Act of 56, ADA..etc if you are an at will employee you can be fired with a NON-DISCRIMINATORY cause...last time I checked theft is a cause.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
However, if she passed out and died as the result of such a policy ... well, I don't think anyone would want that.
This was an 18 year employee with an unblemished record. No written warnings. No verbal warnings. Nothing in 18 years. IMHO, Sometimes you have to take such things into account.
The article states she has an unblemished record, not the employer. I know many people who work here that think they are model employee's but I can tell you their employee file says differently.
As for this situation, we have her story, we don't have the employer's story, and we probably don't have the full truth. If she NEEDED them and paid for them at first opportunity, or at least reported her intent promptly then I see no fault on her side, But if she paid later only after being confronted then you have to wonder. I've been to Walgreen's here many times, and it's not like there is only one employee in the store.
We just don't have all the information, we have 1 side of the story.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
Then you need a refresher course my friend cause I don't care if you're black, asian, blind, diabetic, or missing limbs or a combination of all minorities protected by Civil Rights Act of 56, ADA..etc if you are an at will employee you can be fired with a NON-DISCRIMINATORY cause...last time I checked theft is a cause.
I was told, by a lawyer in Ohio, that you still have to have a good reason to fire someone in an at will state. Chips in the middle of a medical emergency...not a good reason. Why do you think they have taken on her case?
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
Quote:
Then you need a refresher course my friend cause I don't care if you're black, asian, blind, diabetic, or missing limbs or a combination of all minorities protected by Civil Rights Act of 56, ADA..etc if you are an at will employee you can be fired with a NON-DISCRIMINATORY cause...last time I checked theft is a cause.
You have to prove intent.. that's where you have fallen off the wagon Loki.. Circumstances were such that she couldn't pay for them at the point of consumption.
And as it appears she paid for the chips as quickly as possible, I doubt the termination stands up.
do you know what constitutes theft in a retail store? I bet not.
In order for store security to detain you, it has to be clear that you intend to leave the store with the goods unpaid for.
With certain exceptions like if you see a person taking thier coat off, then putting on several coats on one over the other then putting thier own coat over them all.. then you know it's fishy. (LOL, I actually saw that one attempted when I worked for May Company in the early 70's)
But if someone puts a tube of lipstick in thier purse or pocket.. walks around the store for an hour, they can't detain them until they attempt to leave the store. That's when it's clear and that's when they have them nailed. As long as they are in the store, it's reasonable to assume that they were intending to pay for the lipstick before they left. Try and prove otherwise.. it won't work.
It's you that needs a refresher my friend...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 520 |
I'm a type 1 diabetic... For those that think grabbing a bag of chips is a wierd thing to do when they feel a low coming on...
Chips are very high in carbs (aka sugar) and would definitely do the trick in less than 5 minutes. While I agree maybe a can of pepsi would have been faster. Sometimes if I get low, may sound wierd, but I use it as an opportunity to enjoy something I normally am not able to eat. Maybe it was a bag of doritos that she was craving and not an expensive package of sugar tablets that taste like chalk (also, don't know any diabetics that inject sugar into themselves.. that's for when your out cold and someone is there to help you).
No matter how low she was... maybe she was on the brink of passing out... or maybe she was just starting to feel low and wanted to bypass the whole shakey/faint feeling. If she worked there that long without problems and paid for the bag of chips the same day I don't see the issue. But, come on.. a lawsuit? Go find another job and move on with your life.
"I'm a mog. Half man, half dog. I'm my own best friend."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,962 |
I really get the feeling that those that aren't diabetic or haven't seen the effects one feels when thier blood count drops,, just don't get it. Anyone who actually thinks that a person suffering in that manner actually thinks clearly is way off base. I've found out first hand that you don't think, you just grab whatever is handy.. and you eat it. you worry about the results later.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
Good thing you're in HR and not in law Quote:
do you know what constitutes theft in a retail store? I bet not.
Doesn't matter. No one is filing criminal charges so it's not important. The only important issue is what Walgreens' defines theft as and if in their employee handbook do they have a 0 tolerance policy against what the lady did here. For example I could wear a t-shirt and jeans to the court room...how long do you think it would take the judge to throw me out? Is there a criminal statute against wearing jeans and t-shirt? Nope, but the Court has its own set of rules other than the U.S.C.A. Another example its entirely legal for me to go on a profanity laced tirade in my house but if I do it as an employee of a store I am probably going to get fired right HR man? Did I break a law? No. Did I break one of the rules of employment? Yes.
If Walgreens can show that this was in their employee handbook attached with a 0 tolerance policy then they are in the right.Not saying its morally right its just the way the law is when it comes to employees at will.
Go Browns!!
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Diabetic sues Walgreens for firing
her over a "stolen" bag of chips
|
|
![[Linked Image from thumb0.webshots.net]](http://thumb0.webshots.net/t/34/34/0/73/58/2594073580091396520Miskbz_th.jpg)
