EEOC lawsuit on behalf of diabetic Walgreen employer can proceed: Judge

Apr 17, 2014 Full story: Business Insurance 39

A disability discrimination lawsuit filed on behalf of an 18-year Walgreen Co. worker with diabetes who was terminated after she allegedly ate a bag of chips without paying for it to stave off a low-blood sugar attack, can proceed, says a federal court.

Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Diane

Phoenix, AZ

#1 Apr 18, 2014
Good. I hope she wins.
waghps

Houston, TX

#2 Apr 18, 2014
Hmmm... Sounds like a load of crap. They gave extra breaks? What kind of 18yr old has diabetes that bad? Sounds like a fatty got hungry and had no money. I worked with a diabetic that worked his ass off. This story is about a problem employee that finally got the boot yet still refuses to leave.... Hmmm... Sounds familiar.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#3 Apr 18, 2014
I would think she would be on video near the cosmetics counter and again putting the chips under her register. The concern is why she didn't have easy access to candy or some form of glucose, etc. unless the candy was at her register, locker or break room and too far away. Diabetics should have something with them at all times take in case of a low-blood sugar attack and that is a whole other story. Also, blood sugar can change with one's exercise so it is possible that her blood sugar dropped as a result of her work in the stockroom. If she tested her blood sugar after the incident, that would be important to know too. The young woman is 18 though, that seems young to me to deal with it all. What I don't get is that the article said she developed diabetes 5 years after working as a cashier. Was she 13 when she started working at that store? Something doesn't make sense.

I think Walgreen was afraid of the liability issues associated with her condition. If she has been working as a cashier for 5 years, they must trust her.
theborg

Detroit, MI

#4 Apr 18, 2014
You will be surprised diabetes is not an ADA illness. It fails 2 of the 3 require.

1. It can be treated by self adminstrated drugs.
2. It is not the loss of a limb and does not require a piece of hardware.

There are case law that supports Walgreens.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#5 Apr 18, 2014
theborg wrote:
You will be surprised diabetes is not an ADA illness. It fails 2 of the 3 require.
1. It can be treated by self adminstrated drugs.
2. It is not the loss of a limb and does not require a piece of hardware.
There are case law that supports Walgreens.
I didn't say that diabetes was an ADA illness. It doesn't require hardware because the use of insulin pumps varies. To try and prevent an low blood sugar attack, the individual has to be aware enough to feel a low-blood sugar attack coming on. I know several people with diabetes and when we go out, I ask to make sure that they have some form of glucose on them and that I know where it is too or we don't go out. Same thing with people who have food allergies - an epipen has to be with them. Also, if the young woman is still growing, her insulin needs will fluctuate during her growth spurts. If she was having an attack and had not been alert enough to get any food and the attack had progressed, how long would it have been before she was found? That is a question to keep a parent up at night.

Other question is whether or not other people in the store were allowed to pay for snacks later.

Good luck Walgreen. You will need it.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#6 Apr 18, 2014
A doctor specializing in endrocrinology, diabetes and metabolism could shed light on all of this. I would guess her doctor is already involved...

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#7 Apr 18, 2014
and the judge and/or jury will see a young women, regardless of her physical state, who has been working as cashier for five long years and this young women will remind you of your child, your niece, your granddaughter, or your babysitter while Walgreen talks about ADA illness classification...
Diane

Phoenix, AZ

#8 Apr 18, 2014
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought she was an 18 year employee of Walgreens. Not 18 years old.

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#9 Apr 18, 2014
Diane wrote:
Maybe I misunderstood. I thought she was an 18 year employee of Walgreens. Not 18 years old.
No, you are correct. 18 years with WAG, not 18 years old. If that was the case, she started working for WAG at age 13, at the very latest, if she "developed diabetes about five years after she started working as a cashier..."

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#10 Apr 18, 2014
chips to stave off low blood sugar?

Don't we have glucose tablets in the Diagnostics department for that? Plus the article says she was allowed to keep candy with her because of her condition.

I'll assume what I see at a lot of Walgreens. These long timers feel "untouchable" and do whatever they please. She probably also called in sick alot and have all these special needs with her schedule. Plus being an 18year employee, she gets paid way over minimum yet she works below par.

Overpaid sloths with attitude. We've all seen them. And yet they feel entitiled to special treatment for their lack of work ethic. I betcha management's happy she's gone.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#11 Apr 18, 2014
Not sure why it took five and a half years for the incident to be brought to trial.
As much as I don't like LP, I'm going to side with Walgreens on this one. It's a known rule that if you work in retail, you pay for merchandise BEFORE you consume them. If it was truly an emergency, candy would work better than chips and she didn't seem to worried about paying for her chips. Hopefully Walgreens wins this one.
Mgt_smarter_than _green

Berkeley, CA

#12 Apr 18, 2014
I'm my experience working almost 10 years at Walgreens, I have encounter over 15 incident with diabetic reaction from our customers and all the incident I or any employee that was nearby was grabbed any sugar/ salt item in the reach of hand to save the customer. Why be so cruel to an employee that helps you make profits. Where's the Good Samaritan, I guess not at Walgreens. A human life is worth more than $1.99. What if she didn't grab the chips and went into shock and died. How would that lawsuit or public relations of Walgreens look. Either way she should have not been fired over this. Walgreens deserve to pay. One has to remember that Walgreens is a part if the health care system and this his a healthcare issue. Think about it ethically before judging, walgreens need to hold itself to an hire standard than just profit and loses.
theborg

Columbia City, IN

#13 Apr 18, 2014
Ethics has no bearing in the law.

“The Papers said I was Truant”

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#14 Apr 19, 2014
She could have paged someone after she tried to pay for them and found that there wasn't anybody just standing at the cosmetics register.

Hell, any time you want to do something against policy, you should page a manager/lead to get an ok.

I would never just open something and then stash it without telling SOMEONE. Just telling another cashier so they can back up your story is the minimum. If you had a medical issue, then tell a friggin' manager that you just almost died and had to save your own life.

Did she go home at the end of that day without paying for the chips? Did she not mention the life-threatening attack to anyone?

If you don't have an understanding with management about these types of scenarios, then there's a chance of consequences. You can't always fall back on an excuse, and act like that absolves you of all wrongs. You can't claim 'discrimination' when your actions don't jive with what is expected of employees, even of those with your condition.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#15 Apr 19, 2014
JTruant wrote:
She could have paged someone after she tried to pay for them and found that there wasn't anybody just standing at the cosmetics register.
Hell, any time you want to do something against policy, you should page a manager/lead to get an ok.
I would never just open something and then stash it without telling SOMEONE. Just telling another cashier so they can back up your story is the minimum. If you had a medical issue, then tell a friggin' manager that you just almost died and had to save your own life.
Did she go home at the end of that day without paying for the chips? Did she not mention the life-threatening attack to anyone?
If you don't have an understanding with management about these types of scenarios, then there's a chance of consequences. You can't always fall back on an excuse, and act like that absolves you of all wrongs. You can't claim 'discrimination' when your actions don't jive with what is expected of employees, even of those with your condition.
I will say that you make some valid points. I wondered if she mentioned the attack to anyone. I was wrong in thinking she was 18 years old - thanks to all for correcting me and sharing your perspectives on this case.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#16 Apr 19, 2014
I could still understand grabbing any food nearby over to hoofing it to the diabetics section for glucose items.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#17 Apr 19, 2014
So if she had diabetes for 13 years while working at Walgreen, there must have been some discussions with her on this topic. I wonder if there was new management at the store.
Mike

Atlanta, GA

#18 Apr 19, 2014
First off, I'm diabetic and when I run low, I do not look for a bag of chips when there are glucose tabs or even orange juice available in the store. Chips do not raise your blood sugar that quickly.
Seriously

Portage, IN

#19 Apr 19, 2014
I too am diabetic, and when my sugar begins to drop, I reach for some food.... Not questioning the sugar value. When blood sugars fall, sometimes faster than others, I want to put something in my system , and I do not always think what or where I can get something of better "sugar" content. People need to not be so judgmental when they do not know the entire story...both sides of it. And have they ever lived the life, as this one, as a diabetic. Some diabetics, no matter how what, are not in the so called "perfect control" as others on here seem suggest that they are.
theborg

Toledo, OH

#20 Apr 19, 2014
I am just informing people of how it is viewed under the law. Mine can not be controled. I am about 80percent insulin resistant.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Walgreens Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
kermit leaving end of this year 40 min Evod Enroht 14
Rolling over pto 2 hr COSFL 9
Phlex 3 hr Skeptic 3
Walgreens music playlist from 2011 to the present (Apr '12) 4 hr rvsvalve 1,087
2015 healthcare premium sticker shock 5 hr Txpharmguy 14
medical equipment (Oct '13) 6 hr Courtney Galler 3
Alliance Boots RXM manages entire store (Jan '13) 14 hr wags4life 40
vpr 18 hr Gonna Happen 9
CL'S Meeting Today about Bonus 22 hr MGR NY 19
Wait for it……... 22 hr wag1234 141
Wassons Weekly Sep 15 Retiree 61
•••

Walgreens People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••