I wonder too if it might have something to do w/ the staffing @ Walgreen’s? The ones by us always put the checkers to work stocking or doing other “store chores” while they are at the register and I could see that if I were in that situation, walking back and forth, etc., would be just the sort of environment where I’d get focused on my task and get zonked-out hypo before I’d realize it, particularly if there were some kind of customer service responsibility like she claimed?
I’ve also noticed that the managers seem to be sort of tools about this and will walk over to stare at a cashier stocking something to “hint” that they need to go check me out while I’m lounging around by the cash register. To me, if the manager isn’t doing anything else, they ought to just come check me out so the employee will finish their “busywork” task sooner resulting in lower prices and greater overall efficiency in the operation. Of couse, it’s a panopticonic power struggle so they manager has to fills their role, run and report the thing to the bigwig “loss prevention manager” who ends her career. I haven’t worked retail too much but I like to watch what’s going on and manufacture these sort of scenarios in my head.
It will be interesting to learn how the case develops, apparently since they have taken the case to court. If anything, perhaps it will make Walgreen’s consider just how “cost effective” a “zero-tolerance” policy for that kind of crap is, between the legal costs and whatever damages she might be awarded?
Im glad the EEOC is bringing attention to this. Its a violation of the law. Josefina is entitled to “reasonable accomodations” because she is diabetic. the EEOC is arguing (and I agree) that Josefina eating chips to raise her BG, due to diabetes is a reasonable accomodation. It will take her a little bit to get her head on straight after a low, but is the best solution. I don’t think anyone can argue that she should not have eaten anything because her employer did not permit it. It is far cheeper than calling an ambulance to the store to revive her and also gives Walgreens less bad publicity (assuming they didn’t can her).
There is another popular post about the wierd foods diabetics have eaten when low. Proof that sometimes we get ourselves into bad situations and make odd or foolish choices. The only difference is Josefina was at work and it violated her employer’s “rules”
The other issue is Josefina may need more education if she believes that chips are a good choice in correcting a low. They do have carbs and will work, but they are likely not fast enough. But possibly the chips were the closest thing to her to grab. Maybe she is hypo unaware after so many years and realized she was low when her BG was 30?
Any reasonable manager can figure out a reason to fire an employee. Heck private companies don’t even need a reason, like economic downturn equals company layoffs. To fire someone and TELL them it is because they are diabetic is (in my opinion) a bad way to run a business and against the law.
First of all, I understand privacy because I rarely told anyone I was diabetic. But if you read any of the articles, she states that her supervisors did know. She is also asking for special consideration as a diabetic - you can’t ask for that and remain anonymous at the same time
She paid for the chips AFTER her supervisor confiscated them so technically, there is absolutely no proof that she really planned on paying for them.
It is her claim that she has a good record with the company. A lot of people “think” they are great employees but management thinks otherwise. I have been in management and worked with people that were claiming they walked on water when I knew they were about to get fired for being a lousy employee.
This woman was not fired because she was diabetic nor was she fired because she ate chips. She was fired because she took the chips without paying for them first. That is stealing no matter how you want to look at it.
That’s exactly what will be in Walgreen’s attorney’s opening statement! I can see all sorts of interesting things to explore and they will probably end up settling it somehow without a trial but I don’ t see this case as having huge value to either side. It’s a very sad story about how the store handled things though. I will switch to CVS for my junk food runs from work but I’m not sure about the RXs as part of the charm of our neighborhood is the 24 hour Walgreens 1/2 mile away.
It would be my opening statement and I am not a $750/hour attorney!
I don’t use Walgreens because there is not one close to me but if I did, I doubt that I would change because of this. I don’t really have too much sympathy for the woman. You keep saying you don’t keep stuff for an emergency because of them - you will have to change that line if you quit using them!
When I was in college, I went real bad low while I was grocery shopping and I was so whacked out of my mind that I walked my grocery cart right out of the store (without) paying. Got in my car and started eating when my sense came back to me I walked my grocery cart back into the store and checked out. Technically they could have charged me with shoplifting, but thankfully they must of known something was up because they didn’t say anything.
Not saying this is what happened here, but I will always have compassion for a fellow PWD who has a low and does whatever they need to treat it. Also when I am low, I not always thinking with the clearest mind.
I don’t know Kelly that is a pretty hard line. Can you imagine getting caught unprepared with a low of 30 mg/dl in the grocery store and sitting in line to pay for your skittles without opening them because you did not want to “steal”? Or would you be more concerned that you were going to face plant any second if you don’t get your blood sugar up? Perhaps there was a line and she couldn’t wait to pay.
Regarding the chips: Does everyone remember that saying that is repeated so often on this site “eat to your meter”? We have no idea how chips affect her blood glucose. I know when I eat chips the spike does not look a whole lot different than glucose tablets. For me, it takes a good deal more fat than is found in a bag of chips before my gastric emptying is affected.
In the end we are all just speculating about the particular merits of what either side did or did not do wrong.
I have already been caught in stores and I waited to pay. If I felt I was going to pass out, I would get someone to help me. She was in a pharmacy with a phone that she could have called her supervisor for help and she chose not to.
I agree with your sentiment about this case. I am usually very well prepared but I get caught short without any handy emergency food from time to time. We all know the cognitive impairment that comes with low blood sugar. In a case like this I am very sympathetic to the diabetic worker.
Corporations are by definition amoral. Their only loyalty is to money and profit. I hope this woman wins and Walgreens has to pay a big fine. That, unfortunately, is the only things that gets the attention of many corporations. They need to accommodate workers with disabilities such as diabetes. Their behavior in this case smacks of high-handed arrogance and disrespect for basic human needs.
I kind of agree with the hard line here. The person is a grown up and a jury would likely expect her to be able to take care of herself. However much diabetes suxx, it’s not exactly a “disability” like ALS or MS or other more ghastly diseases. I have run into some diabetes cases at work and my general impression is that none of the attorneys seem to know too much about it. The general sense I have is that it’s viewed as very challenging and hard to defend. I haven’t seen a case where anyone, other perhaps than me, has seemed interested in looking very closely at diabetes angles.
Re the “chips” issue, Walgreen’s attorney can subpoena her doctor or their own doctor to testify as to what one ought to eat for a hypo. I have never had a doctor recommend chips for a hypo (although I am certain if chips are around and I’m hypo, I will eat them. All of them.) so the doctor will immediately discredit her and make her look like a person with the munchies. A policy of buy from someone else isn’t unreasonable for a retailer who will undoubtedly provide the loss control manager to testify as to the amount of theft (stuff-missing stuff= net stuff?) and further make it at least look like a reasonable policy. Then the question becomes damages and, if they didn’t “discriminate” and the policy is “reasonable” they may end up getting off pretty lightly or even not guilty? If they subpoena the emails where the loss control manager says “let’s get the diabetic loser!” or something evil like that, they would likely have a better case but I am not sure I’m getting that impression.
Very interesting discussion. I tend to think that if she had significant issues as an employee, they’d have found a way to get rid of her LONG before 18 years had passed. And, again, if they had significant issues with her as an employee, they’d have to be some serious kind of stupid not to document those issues. If only on the theory that as a person with a health issue that is legally recognized as a disability (whether you want to call it that or not, by law diabetes is considered a disability), she is a potential lawsuit waiting to happen.
It’ll be interesting to see how it shakes out in the end.
As much as none of us wants to let diabetes limit us in any way, the fact is that diabetes is viewed as a “disability” by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Employers are required to make reasonable accommodations to enable their disabled employees an ability to make a living.
Without the ADA and other laws protecting workers, do you think that corporations like Walgreens will just naturally want to do the right thing? I wouldn’t hold my breath!
As to the quality of chips as an emergency food supply, we’ve all been in situations where we treated a low with whatever was on hand.
I live in the community where this took place and I regularly do business with Walgreens. I need to rethink that.
I’m baffled by some on this thread that are unwilling to cut a fellow diabetic some slack.
I’m not baffled. It goes against the grain to think of oneself as NEEDING “slack” – a lot of us try to be perfect, and I include myself in that because I frequently beat myself up when I call my boss to say I am going to be late because Eric yanked his pump site out and I have to wait an hour for the EMLA cream to take effect so I can replace it. It’s always true and there’s never any alternative for me but to take the time to put a new site in, and I always either make up the time at day’s end or take PTO, but it FEELS like I’m making excuses for being a slacker. Even though I’m not. There are people who turn their situation into a pity party, or use it as reason to take advantage or to ask for special treatment, and none of us want to be seen that way… I guess the question is whether to believe the woman in this story is one of those or is genuinely being mistreated by insensitive corporate twits. I’ve had so many close encounters with ICTs that my knee jerk reflex was to assume that she was on the receiving end of some ICT action, but it’s certainly possible that she’s an opportunist. The jury, as they say, is out! I can’t honestly say which outcome I’d prefer. I would hate it if in this day and age people could screw someone like that (even though I know it happens all the time, realistically speaking), but I also hate it when people sue just because they can.
I’m not saying I wouldn’t cut her slack myself, I’m trying to toss out there how Walgreen’s attorney will likley defend Walgreen’s from having done something wrong? I’ve opened Skittles and eaten them and the brought the half eaten Skittles to the checkout lane which will get some odd looks but this is a bit different. The person has to convince a jury to give her a bunch of money because they wrongfully fired her. I think the diabetesmine story suggested that she hadn’t worked since she was fired.
Perhaps they’ll claim she has been unable to work since then and that Walgreens owes her all of the money she hasn’t been paid since then. I’m not sure a jury will buy that, in this economy. Sure it sucks to be fired and the policy was right there in the giant packet that the plaintiff signed. I’d suspect that with a large company like Walgreens, it was probably laid out in Spanish too? And she probably at least signed something saying she read it and understood that “if you eat snacks they must be purchased from another cashier or you will be fired”.
I hope that she learns that rules apply to everyone - even diabetics. This gal was not disabled, she was able to pick some chips, open them, and eat them. She was not in severe hypo mode…least not from what I read and from her own words even where she said she felt like she was going low. There is always more to a story and I hope the “real” story does surface but I’m not holding my breath and I’ll keep some glucose on hand when the result hits the internets!!
See but everyone has differing levels of comfort about asking for this type of help. I was in the Hospital today around all my co-workers who know I have diabetes. I had a fairly severe low like I have not had for a while. I did NOT want to ask for help even though I probably could have used it. Sounds like YOU would ask for help in such a situation but I certainly am not the type to ask for help.
If it is a life or death situation and the low is severe I do not view opening a package before you pay for it as stealing. Asking someone else for help in that situation would take a heck of a lot longer even explaining the problem and solution than opening the package and fixing your potentially life threatining low. You know what if a store wants to bust me for stealing in that situation then fine- but I am still alive and they are not going to look too good when I get done telling as many people as possible how it all played out.
When I am very low, soliciting anyone’s help is a monumental effort! I have difficulty forming words, much less sentences! Everyone’s diabetes is a bit different and it’s a hazard to generalize your experience as representative of everyone’s else’s.
Picking up a phone and articulating a need for help is not something that you can reasonably expect from any diabetic experiencing hypoglycemia much less one who uses English as a second language.
This situation is one that cries out for reasonable minds to extend an exception to Walgreens’ sacrosanct policy of paying before consuming. I have consumed many items to treat hypoglycemia in a grocery store before paying. I just put the empty wrapper up on the conveyer belt and pay for it with everything else. No cashier has even asked one word about this.
Why do you feel the need to comply with the usual social protocol at the risk to your health?
I understand your reluctance to not expect any “slack” from coworkers or employers when it comes to needed accommodations in the workplace. I know that some workers “milk the system” and take whatever advantage they can in any given situation.
The “regular workers” that try to do what’s right and give full value for their pay should not, however, feel sheepish about workplace accommodations that meet their basic human physiological needs. They are not to be confused with workers who milk the system!
I’ve read and respected much of what you contribute here. In this case, your inability to understand what may have induced a fellow diabetic, experiencing hypoglycemia, to consume a bag of chips before paying for them truly mystifies me.
You state that the Walgreens employee must have read and signed the policy. I agree that this communication may have even been written in Spanish. That doesn’t change the fact that the employee was diabetic, using insulin, and claimed that she was low at the time. In addition she was an 18 year employee with a clean record.
What kind of world do we live in where a person’s natural constituency (us fellow diabetics) assumes the worst and gives the benfit of the doubt to the corporate employer? As stated in the SF Chronicle article, Walgreens treated this long serving employee as worth less than a bag of chips!
I hope Walgreens gets absolutely hammered by this lawsuit and that the fired employee gets full back pay, compensatory as well as punitive damages.
and they are not going to look too good when I get done telling as many people as possible how it all played out.