Josefina Hernandez of San Francisco had a clean record in nearly 18 years of service to the drugstore giant. Her supervisors knew she had diabetes, a disease that calls for careful monitoring and regulation of blood sugar levels.
“I almost always carry a piece of candy in my pocket for situations when I feel my blood sugar getting low, but I didn’t have anything on me this time,” Hernandez said in a statement on the EEOC website. “I knew I needed to do something quickly, so I reached for a bag of chips and paid for them as soon as I could. I worked for Walgreens with no problems almost two decades, so I am very upset to lose my job over this.”
The lawsuit claims Walgreens violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities.
“Ms. Hernandez took action to raise her blood sugar in what could have turned into an emergency situation,” EEOC regional attorney William R. Tamayo said in a statement. “Accommodating disability does not have to be expensive, but it may require an employer to be flexible and open-minded. One wonders whether a long-term, experienced employee is worth less than a bag of chips to Walgreens.”
I find it incredible that a pharmacy should be so small-minded. And yet… at the same time, I’m sadly not surprised.
Chips? Chips are slow and not something that should be used to treat a low. Walgreens has lots of stuff with ready carbs in it.
“I’ve worked for Walgreens with no problems almost two decades…” = she’s given management lots of headaches and they finally found an excuse to fire her.
I’m totally reading between the lines, but that’s what I see. I cry foul on the part of Ms Hernandez.
I have to agree, a long term diabetic (we assume type 1, the story doesn’t elaborate) grabs chips to avoid a low when the store is so chock full of fast carbs (not to mention glucose tabs) . . . seems odd.
All I see in this story is Ms. Hernandez’s lawyer’s version. I’m quite sure his/her prepared press release contains just the information he wants us to have without providing enough information to make a more accurate assessment.
I agree with the others. I can’t imagine chips raising blood sugar quickly. What about glucose tabs, juice, pure sugar candy, soda, or even pint sized milk?
I agree. There are so many other things in Walgreens that would have been better to treat a low with. My theory is that she was hungry and used BS as an excuse to be able to eat something. I would love to be on that jury, but I guess her attorney would make sure I wasn’t.
Like TS said, I am sure that management has been waiting for her to do something so they could get rid of her. Plus, just because someone was a good employee 10 years ago doesn’t mean they still are today.
Please don’t overlook the fact that the lawyer quoted in the story is not HER personal attorney – it’s the attorney from the EEOC. You’re reading between the lines but you’re not reading the lines themselves – this is not a civil suit, it’s a civil RIGHTS suit. Being brought, not by an ambulance chaser, but by a government agency. I would hope that the EEOC would have done due diligence before taking the case–that is, worked with the store to find out the truth of the matter before resorting to a lawsuit.
On the other hand, if she’s given management lots of headaches, they should have documentation of that in her record, and it will come out in the trial. And if they haven’t documented behaviors they find problematic… shame on them.
See my comment above. This is not Ms Hernandez’s lawyer talking. It’s a government agency’s lawyer.
If you’re in a checkout booth, where you’re logged into a cash register and not permitted to leave, and the only thing available is chips… and you’re low… wouldn’t you eat the chips? I’m not saying that’s what happened because obviously I don’t know, but I’ve been caught without food to give my little one before (because his big brother drank the juice I’d put in his bag for low BGs, grrrrr) and basically, you give 'em whatever you’ve got in those situations. If all she could grab was the chips on the other side of the counter, well… that’s what was there.
Much as I hate to argue, I do find chips raise my blood sugar almost immediately. Just another one of those instances where our bodies are very individualistic, I guess. I love chips, unfortunately, and have in fact used them for that afternoon low when my Levemir peaks.
Given that there are few details of what transpired here it is a little hard to come down one way or the other on this. However, as I have learned more about what happens for me as I drop low, I will often pick something not so quick to raise my BG. It depends on when and what my previous meal was and what I am doing physically. For me, chips are not as quick as a glucose tab, but they don’t take long to have some affect.
In regards to her record, the article states that she had a good work history with the company. Who knows what issues or games might be in play. A new supervisor who doesn’t like her hair cut? Who knows. There is just not enough information here to pass any judgment. Especially on her part.
That article just made me even less sympathetic. 20 years as a cashier in an American city at an American store and she speaks in “broken English” and can’t write a coherent note? It’s hard as an employer to deal with people who can’t communicate. Especially in a business that has to interact with customers.
Why is she unemployable after 3 years?
I’ve been a diabetic for 33+ years. I’ve been employed at one job or another since I was 18 (the last 27 years), before that I worked in my parent’s store for 3 years. yes, I’ve had lows, I’ve had to leave meetings, I’ve begged people I barely know for change for the candy machine…
Me thinks there is much that is fishy here, and it’s all on the part of Ms Hernandez.
I don’t know about any sympathy for any party of all this but I also think there is something fishy. And I can’t get around the NO TOLERANCE policy. That is a rule and it has a reason and if they allow one person to disregard it then they must allow the rest of the employees. What if all the employees decided that they needed a bag of chips for whatever reason, or skittles (which would have been a better choice), and they just grabbed them and ate them on the job. I don’t want my cashier eating while she is pushing my food down the belt and into a sack anyway, and everyone has a way to call a supervisor for assistance if needed.
“I almost always carry a piece of candy in my pocket for situations when I feel my blood sugar getting low, but I didn’t have anything on me this time,” Hernandez said…" Almost always? Whatever!
My thought also was that in a store, she has a way to call a supervisor. She was also in a pharmacy that she could have called back to the pharmacy & told them she needed glucose.
I don’t know if we can really say Ms. Hernandez was being silly by eating chips or not. If she was really low at the time, then yeah, it’s weird to choose chips.
But what if her blood sugar was 90 and she realized she had 2 units of insulin on board that she didn’t really need from a lunch that she carb-counted wrong? Those chips may have been enough to help her from going low from that IOB.
We aren’t in a position to really pass judgement on her, or on Walgreens, because the bottom line is that we don’t know anywhere near enough of the details.
Wow, I’m surprised about how a lot of people are reacting to this. It’s a freaking bag of chips. Maybe she had already gone low earlier and used her supplies then? I don’t always carry enough on me to treat more than one or two lows.
To the people saying she could have told someone to bring her glucose tabs…not everyone informs their coworkers of their disabilities, including me. I work in an extremely underhanded petty environment where they will use anything they can against you, and I’d rather not deal with all the trouble that could arise from sharing what I consider to be my personal business with these people. I don’t want to hear questions about my condition, or explain facets of it, or deal with the ‘are you sure you can eat that’ questions. I am happy to manage it myself.
Lastly, the same food can have different effects for different people. Maybe Ms. Hernandez reacts quickly to chips. Or maybe it was the only thing available. Or, as others have pointed out here, she knew she was going to go low, and ate them preemptively. We can’t really judge that without knowing how she responds to chips.
If she worked there for 20 years, this case is ridiculous. Saying that it would be unfair to other employees to give her special consideration is BS. If those other employees who help themselves to a bag of skittles can prove they are diabetic, then sure, of course they can do that. And may I point out…she PAID FOR THE CHIPS. She didn’t steal them! She had a good record with the company.
Did you click the linked URL for Diabetes Attack? It brought me to an another ABC news story called “The face of Obesity-fueled Diabetes at 20”. That certainly is not what I would call a Diabetes Attack!
