Two bottles of orange juice each worth just $1.69 could wind up costing retail giant Dollar General more than $250,000.
But had the store followed its own policy, it might have lived up to its slogan – and saved both time and money.
Twice – once in 2011 and again a year later – former cashier Linda Atkins helped herself to a bottle of orange juice from a Maryville, Tennessee, store’s cooler. Each time, she later paid for the juice. But she still got fired for consuming company products before paying – an infraction the company calls “grazing.” Atkins is diabetic and took the juice to stave off diabetic shock, a federal jury heard.
Dollar General fired Linda Adkins for “grazing,” or consuming store products before paying
She had previously asked if she could keep her personal orange juice at the register. A supervisor refused her request, citing company policy banning food or drink at the register. No mention was made to her that, under Dollar General policy, a medical exception could be made, the court was told.
In 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission filed a lawsuit on Atkins’s behalf. She later joined as a plaintiff. After a federal jury sided with Atkins, the court awarded her $27,565 in back pay and $250,000 in compensatory damages.
Dollar General had argued that Atkins already had special accommodations available that she chose not to use. The company said she could have kept an orange juice in suitable places: Her apron, the break room, the store’s cooler and the register, but out of camera sight – so she wouldn’t be seen breaking company rules. Dan MacDonald, Dollar General’s director of corporate communications, told CNN in a written statement that the company was disappointed in the ruling.
“Dollar General is committed to providing its employees with a work environment free from unlawful discrimination,” he wrote. The company “complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act and provides reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities when such an accommodation is required.”
Jennifer Morton, Atkins’s attorney, told CNN her client is prepared for an extended battle, whether Dollar General appeals the case or asks for a new trial.
“My client just hopes this case will help educate employees and employers under the American with Disabilities Act,” Morton said.
Dive Brief:
- A federal appeals court has upheld a jury award of more than $700,000 for a Dollar General cashier who was not permitted to keep orange juice at her station to accommodate her diabetes and then fired for twice, during medical emergencies, drinking a juice from the store before paying for it (EEOC/Linda Atkins v. Dolgencorp LLC., dba Dollar General Corp., No. 17-6278 (6th Cir., August 7, 2018)).
- The case, which has spanned years, made headlines for opening up the possibility that employers may have to accommodate “stealing.” Dollar General appealed the verdict, but the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that the jury didn’t reach any unreasonable conclusions.
- Once the employee requested the accommodation, Dollar General had a duty to explore the nature of her limitations and determine whether any type of accommodations could be made, the court said; instead, the store manager denied the request, failed to explore alternatives and never relayed the matter to a superior. And in court, the company argued that the employee could have found another way to address her episodes. The 6th Circuit, however, said it was not persuaded by this “accommodate thyself defense”; “the jury had a legally sufficient basis to conclude that Dollar General failed to provide Atkins reasonable alternatives to keeping orange juice at her register. Ample evidence supported that conclusion.”
Dive Insight:
The ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities, unless the employer would suffer an undue hardship as a result. Once an employee has requested an accommodation, the law favors employers that engage in an informal, interactive process to identify reasonable accommodations. Failing to engage in the interactive process isn’t a stand-alone violation, at least under federal law, but it can be evidence of discrimination.
Accommodations can run the gamut. According to federal guidance, common adjustments include making existing facilities accessible; job restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; acquiring or modifying equipment; changing tests, training materials, or policies; providing qualified readers or interpreters; and reassignment to a vacant position.
The ADA does not require that requests for accommodation be in writing, and no “magic words” need be used. Because front-line managers are often on the receiving end of these requests — and in the best position to see if an employee is struggling because of an impairment — training is often recommended as a first step toward compliance. In fact, one expert recommends training managers to respond to such requests by saying, “How can I help you?” to get things started on the right food.
And that’s just where Dollar General went wrong here, EEOC alleged. “This case highlights another employer who failed to train its employees on the reasonable accommodation requirements under the ADA,” EEOC attorney Faye Williams said in a statement announcing the verdict; “We hope this jury verdict sends a message to its employers, train your employees on the reasonable accommodation requirements under the ADA.”
