I'll comment on this below:
Giant Eagle reaches settlement with former employee
Man with Down syndrome was fired in case involving donut
Saturday, March 06, 2004
By Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A weeklong trial that pitted a former supermarket bagger with Down syndrome against one of the region's top employers of people with disabilities ended yesterday with an undisclosed settlement.
David Warnes, 37, of Bethel Park, a former Giant Eagle employee, sued the supermarket chain for firing him after he ate half a donut and put the other half back in the box for sale.
A federal jury on Thursday ruled that the chain had violated Warnes' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the jury hadn't yet decided on a damage award.
Before it could, the parties hashed out an agreement that will remain secret, and Warnes quietly left the courthouse with his family.
"He was pleased," said his mother, Carol. "[But] he doesn't really comprehend the legal system."
As the jury met with the judge, Giant Eagle's officers and its trial lawyer huddled to examine the numbers.
"We disagreed with the jury's verdict," said Rob Borella, director of corporate communications for Giant Eagle, "but we thought it was appropriate to reach a settlement."
Warnes' lawyers, civil rights attorney Timothy O'Brien and Mark Murphy of the Disabilities Law Project, said the supermarket fired Warnes in 2002 after he ate half a donut from an Entenmann's bakery display in the Village Square store in Bethel Park.
"We argued that he didn't understand the consequences of his action," said Murphy, deputy executive director of the Law Project.
"He acted on impulse," said Carol Warnes. "He didn't intentionally steal it."
But Borella said Warnes was fired after he put the half-eaten part back in the box.
"He put the box back on the shelf where it could be purchased by customers," he said.
He also said Warnes had a history of workplace problems.
"Prior to this situation, the company had worked with Warnes for nine years to coach and train him on appropriate conduct," he said later in a statement. "Unfortunately, this coaching and training had not been successful, because numerous problems with his job performance persisted."
Borella also pointed out that Giant Eagle employs hundreds of people with disabilities and is recognized for giving them opportunities to advance.
Last October, the U.S. Department of Labor honored the grocery chain with a New Freedom Initiative Award under a program started by President Bush for "outstanding employment practices toward people with disabilities," according to a news release.
Under "Project Opportunity," started in 1991, Giant Eagle created a school-to-work mentoring program for Pittsburgh public school students who have visual, hearing, mobility and learning disabilities. Graduates receive permanent positions with the company.
The company has won other awards and sponsors disability awareness training every two years for its human resources managers.
Borella and Giant Eagle's trial counsel would not comment on any of the testimony or evidence presented in court.
But O'Brien said the chain initially claimed Warnes was fired for violating the employee theft policy, then said at trial that he was fired for his past work performance. O'Brien said the past performance defense had no merit because Warnes had never before violated the theft policy and had not been disciplined for any violation since 1998.
The lawsuit sought damages for lost wages, reimbursement for the difficulty Warnes would have in finding another job, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
Warnes, who is unemployed, doesn't want his job back. His mother said he's attending workshop training for a different job.
A state unemployment compensation board ruled in 2002 that he was eligible for lost wages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read this and I'm not sure what I think. We've shopped at this store in the past and one of the reasons we stopped is because of the large number of disabled persons they have working as baggers. It's a recently remodled store, very large with all the goodies you want from a large supermarket. But we just got tired of the slowness of the lines and the poor job done by their baggers. We quit going there before they added self-checkouts, and have since become quite comfortable with another nearby, smaller store of the same chain.
My gut feeling is that this is just a poor application of the law. I'm thinking you have to have some level of standards when running business and if you have an employee that does not understand this or the appropriatness of his/her actions then you should be able to terminate that employee without repercussion.
Giant Eagle reaches settlement with former employee
Man with Down syndrome was fired in case involving donut
Saturday, March 06, 2004
By Torsten Ove, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
A weeklong trial that pitted a former supermarket bagger with Down syndrome against one of the region's top employers of people with disabilities ended yesterday with an undisclosed settlement.
David Warnes, 37, of Bethel Park, a former Giant Eagle employee, sued the supermarket chain for firing him after he ate half a donut and put the other half back in the box for sale.
A federal jury on Thursday ruled that the chain had violated Warnes' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, but the jury hadn't yet decided on a damage award.
Before it could, the parties hashed out an agreement that will remain secret, and Warnes quietly left the courthouse with his family.
"He was pleased," said his mother, Carol. "[But] he doesn't really comprehend the legal system."
As the jury met with the judge, Giant Eagle's officers and its trial lawyer huddled to examine the numbers.
"We disagreed with the jury's verdict," said Rob Borella, director of corporate communications for Giant Eagle, "but we thought it was appropriate to reach a settlement."
Warnes' lawyers, civil rights attorney Timothy O'Brien and Mark Murphy of the Disabilities Law Project, said the supermarket fired Warnes in 2002 after he ate half a donut from an Entenmann's bakery display in the Village Square store in Bethel Park.
"We argued that he didn't understand the consequences of his action," said Murphy, deputy executive director of the Law Project.
"He acted on impulse," said Carol Warnes. "He didn't intentionally steal it."
But Borella said Warnes was fired after he put the half-eaten part back in the box.
"He put the box back on the shelf where it could be purchased by customers," he said.
He also said Warnes had a history of workplace problems.
"Prior to this situation, the company had worked with Warnes for nine years to coach and train him on appropriate conduct," he said later in a statement. "Unfortunately, this coaching and training had not been successful, because numerous problems with his job performance persisted."
Borella also pointed out that Giant Eagle employs hundreds of people with disabilities and is recognized for giving them opportunities to advance.
Last October, the U.S. Department of Labor honored the grocery chain with a New Freedom Initiative Award under a program started by President Bush for "outstanding employment practices toward people with disabilities," according to a news release.
Under "Project Opportunity," started in 1991, Giant Eagle created a school-to-work mentoring program for Pittsburgh public school students who have visual, hearing, mobility and learning disabilities. Graduates receive permanent positions with the company.
The company has won other awards and sponsors disability awareness training every two years for its human resources managers.
Borella and Giant Eagle's trial counsel would not comment on any of the testimony or evidence presented in court.
But O'Brien said the chain initially claimed Warnes was fired for violating the employee theft policy, then said at trial that he was fired for his past work performance. O'Brien said the past performance defense had no merit because Warnes had never before violated the theft policy and had not been disciplined for any violation since 1998.
The lawsuit sought damages for lost wages, reimbursement for the difficulty Warnes would have in finding another job, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.
Warnes, who is unemployed, doesn't want his job back. His mother said he's attending workshop training for a different job.
A state unemployment compensation board ruled in 2002 that he was eligible for lost wages.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just read this and I'm not sure what I think. We've shopped at this store in the past and one of the reasons we stopped is because of the large number of disabled persons they have working as baggers. It's a recently remodled store, very large with all the goodies you want from a large supermarket. But we just got tired of the slowness of the lines and the poor job done by their baggers. We quit going there before they added self-checkouts, and have since become quite comfortable with another nearby, smaller store of the same chain.
My gut feeling is that this is just a poor application of the law. I'm thinking you have to have some level of standards when running business and if you have an employee that does not understand this or the appropriatness of his/her actions then you should be able to terminate that employee without repercussion.
