The Government Is A Bully
The EEOC, writes Mary Kissel at the WSJ, sifts through tens of thousands of cases a year and must choose carefully which to pursue, yet they chose to spend taxpayer dollars to litigate on behalf of a potato chip thief:
In September 2008, Walgreens employee Josefina Hernandez claims she had a hypoglycemia attack, grabbed a bag of potato chips off a shelf and ate them to boost her blood sugar. The drug-store company has a strict policy against "grazing" (i.e., stealing) and so a supervisor fired Ms. Hernandez, an 18-year veteran of the company.Three years later, the EEOC sued Walgreens for discrimination under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act and asked for punitive damages.
Instead of settling (as it seems the government figures they'll do -- and as Starbucks and others have done when the government came after them), Walgreens fought back. Kissel writes:
While Ms. Hernandez's firing might sound harsh, it was perfectly legal.The ADA requires employees to request an accommodation for a medical condition, which Mrs. Hernandez never did. Nor does federal law sanction illegal activity--i.e., theft--under cover of a disability, as the Supreme Court made clear in 2003's Raytheon v. Hernandez. Walgreens "estimates that it loses $700 million annually to theft, approximately 50-60% of which is employee theft," according to court documents.
Unfortunately, a judge ruled against the store's motion for summary judgment last week. Whether Walgreens will continue to fight remains to be seen.
Commenter Grant Miner wrote in the WSJ:
There is one glaring discrepancy in the plaintiff's reason for taking the potato chips. As a 20+ year diabetic, I can tell you that if you suffer a hypoglycemia attack (low blood sugar), the most effective quick remedy is to drink some orange or apple juice. A candy bar is also good. Potato chips are almost worthless, so the case should have been thrown out on the grounds of it being a phony excuse.
More on the case from Robin E. Shea at EmploymentAndLaborInsider (other cases at the link):
Walgreen: The Case of the Pilfered Potato Products. (I wanted to entitle this one "All that and a bag of chips," but another blogger beat me to it.) This case has received more publicity than the others, but Walgreen has nonetheless declined to comment.According to the EEOC, a cashier who was diabetic grabbed a store merchandise bag of potato chips worth $1.39 and ate them to stave off low blood sugar. She paid for the chips "as soon as she was able to do so." (In other words, she didn't pay for them promptly, even though she was at the cash register.) She was fired, presumably for stealing store product. As we all know, diabetes is now a "disability" within the meaning of the ADAAA. Walgreen should have accommodated her medical-emergency need for a bag of potato chips.
I expect Walgreen's defense to run something like this: As a retail employer, we have to be vigilant about theft of store product, aka "inventory shrinkage," which causes us to lose $X billion a year. This employee knew that theft in any amount, no matter how small, was ground for immediate discharge, and it's in our employee handbook, and we include it in new-employee orientation, and we have her signature on documentation showing that she was instructed about this upon hire. We were not aware that she was diabetic, but if she had problems with low blood sugar, she should have brought snacks with her to work so that she could nibble when she needed to do so. If this was unexpected, she should have eaten our chips and then promptly paid for them, since she was already stationed at the cash register and had her purse right there under the counter. If her purse was in her locker, she should have immediately notified the manager on duty or a co-worker that she'd eaten the chips and would pay for them as soon as she could get to her purse. She also could have placed a handwritten "IOU" in the cash register. She did none of these things, and we caught her on video eating the chips. She paid for the chips only after we confronted her about it, and at that point it was too late.
So, who wins? Assuming Walgreen can prove what I've just said, my vote is for Walgreen. On the other hand, if it turns out that the cashier really had no way to get to her money and no way to notify someone else that she'd eaten merchandise without paying for it, perhaps the EEOC has a chance.
I'm hypoglycemic (not diabetic).
I get low blood sugar and I start shaking uncontrollably. Like someone with Parkinson's. I also get full of rage and can't concentrate. I will wake up if my blood sugar is too low.
Chips or OJ or apple juice will do jack shit. Ok maybe they will help me for like 2 seconds. What I need a piece of fatty meat.
I will stab a motherfucker for any food though.
The only way I have been able to control my attacks? Low carbing. Docs will tell you to drink oj or eat carby things. I found out I was hypoglycemic by reading this very old book that basically has you test your body's tolerance for sugar. It was only marketed for hypoglycemics but I found it fascinating that it outlined very closely to what Amy posts about low carbing.
Doctors are super useless to is hypos by the way. Diabetics is well studied but naturally occurring low blood sugar is poorly understood.
(On a side note sugar issues are very common with people with mental illness, which I find very curious)
Ppen at April 16, 2014 11:28 PM
I don't know about the fatty meat. It's rather hard to get in a crisis. What always worked for me is a soft drink with nuts or peanut butter crackers.
The coke gives immediate sugar to get you out of an emergency and keep you conscious long enough for the protein to kick in. A fatty piece of meat would be great at this point. My items are a little easier to carry.
A coke without the backup food would leave me in a position to crash even harder after my body reacted to it 20 minutes later. People with diabetes who are on artificial insulin or a different story since their body doesn't react by pumping insulin in response to sugar.
Jen at April 17, 2014 3:30 AM
She's obese, and my guess is that she has beeen snacking away every day she's on the job. This time she got caught. If she was choosing healthier foods, she might not have the health problems.
KateC at April 17, 2014 5:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2014/04/17/the_government_17.html#comment-4502155">comment from KateCKateC (a work psycho like me who is up at 5 am) is right. Check out Dr. Jay Wortman's story:
http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/about/
Amy Alkon
at April 17, 2014 5:28 AM
Ppen is right, mostly.
My sister is hypoglycemic, meat is best but takes time, we'd use powdered sugar it bridge the gap.
Chips wouldnt have one jack shit, and i she was really having a low blood sugar attack to the point she needed to tear open and chow down without pying first she wouldnt have been capable of working the register while she was eating, which she was according the the recording
lujlp at April 17, 2014 7:27 AM
Have a diabetic coworker, so I know the quick sugar followed by some long burning protien. Coworker keeps a sack of protien bars in his desk. With him when his sugar gets low it's like he is drunk, starts loosing his best judgement and it keeps getting worse. After food 20 min he's fine.
Not sure what chips would do, but probably better than nothing. The real question is when it kicked in what did she do. The phrase she payed after she was caught is pretty telling to me, but a judgement call. With my coworker, when he is fine, most of the time, he is a good worker, been there for decades. An occasional foggy moment isn't a big deal. If she were a model employee, they would have probably overlooked it, but my guess is several things had gone missing, but without proof can't fire someone or accuse someone. Apparently even with proof there is repercussions to firing someone.
Joe J at April 17, 2014 8:17 AM
I can go into any store, eat a bag of chips in the store and it is not stealing until I leave without paying. They should have waited until she left then fired her the next day.
Matt at April 17, 2014 8:20 AM
I'm diabetic, tend to go more hyperglycemic than hypoglycemic. But I keep a tube of glucose tablets at hand. Quick, easy, and OBVIOUSLY medical. Then again, I've also told my employers that I'm a diabetic.
This really DOES sound like a snacker who wants a payout. . .
Keith Glass at April 17, 2014 10:35 AM
She was working at a Walgreens, she could have eaten straight sugar, they have a candy isle and sandwich meat.
She wanst crashing, she wanted chips
lujlp at April 17, 2014 10:58 AM
I agree with the comments about chips and diabetes... you go hypoglycemic you need SUGAR, as straight as you can. If you get starch (potato) loaded with fat you won't increase your blood sugar very fast, which is the goal. Starch needs to be broken down into sugar, which you do not have time for.
The doctor told me this when I had gestational diabetes, my diabetic coworker who was on insulin carried candy in his pocket. The vet told me this when our cat went on insulin. We had a syringe with dry sugar in it near the sink in case the cat had a problem with a dosage adjustment (add water, squirt cat, try not to get bit).
So, if she'd grabbed a lollypop, soda, candy, cookies, or juice I might have a bit of sympathy. This, I do not.
Shannon M. Howell at April 17, 2014 2:12 PM
I can go into any store, eat a bag of chips in the store and it is not stealing until I leave without paying. They should have waited until she left then fired her the next day.
Posted by: Matt at April 17, 2014 8:20 AM
Are you quite sure, this isnt exactly the way it went down?
Isab at April 17, 2014 2:14 PM
>>Are you quite sure, this isnt exactly the way it went down?
No, but then I can't read the article. Did it go down this way?
Matt at April 17, 2014 10:29 PM
I'm a primary hypoglycemic. I've found that peanut butter and crackers are the best when I have low blood sugar. The carbs in the crackers bring the sugar up quickly, but the peanut butter keeps me from crashing again. If I were to eat straight sugar like everyone here is suggesting, I would be on the floor....but the key to all of it is a high protein low carb diet to begin with.
My question is why she didn't have something in her pocket in case of problems? My blood sugar is pretty stable these days, but I still always have something in reach in case of problems. And I spend way too much time in Walgreen's due to health issues, and I've never seen a situation where the checker couldn't get on the horn and request backup. Was she really unable to request assistance for what she claims was a medical emergency?
Julie
Julie W at April 18, 2014 8:44 AM
>>Are you quite sure, this isnt exactly the way it went down?
No, but then I can't read the article. Did it go down this way?
Posted by: Matt at April 17, 2014 10:29 PM
The article doesn't say, But my experience in business management and law, is that people are rarely fired on the spot, so to speak, so chances are good, that she was fired at the end of the shift, or later, and that she probably had been warned several times about stealing stuff before.
They may have had a camera on the register and this was an iron clad example of behavior that may have gone on for years.
We had a supervisor at a place where I worked, who would take things off the employee run snack bar all of the time, and not pay. It was an honor system, and those only work with honorable people.
Hard to catch and hard to prove, until you leave the premises without paying.
Isab at April 18, 2014 9:44 PM
Leave a comment