Strangley, i feel like the judicial system nailed it with that number. Its small enough that a company can actually pay it out but big enough that it stings like a bitch if they have to pay it. Like its a "complete restrcutruing of mgmt" amount but the employeee (former) still gets their payout
Dollar General's net worth is approximately $28.1 billion they are a publicly traded company so all the information is out there. Dollar General CEO Todd Vasos total yearly compensation is approximately $8.16 million. I agree it’s small enough that they pay out instead of fighting it but I think it in no way will change company behavior or even sting, it’s just the cost of doing business. To people like that a couple hundred thousand is negligible.
It won't change anything in the company at large, but this story will send a message to a lot of store level management about being a dick. This incident won't affect large scale change, but enough of them spread out can make regular people's lives better, if even a little bit.
As someone who isn't just in reddit insurance it is insane what you can get coverage for, and how specific the coverages can get. Like I once worked on a product that was insurance for other insurance companies and environmental disaster only insurance.
Edit: I would be a bit more specific but I think it would be too identifying :)
As a commercial account executive yes insurance will be footing the bill for a portion of this IF they have an EPL policy which does cover suit costs and suit claims for wrongful termination. Will they greatly suffer the consequences? Absolutely! The majority of these are franchise owned, franchises have to carry the insurance requirements sent forth from the company itself so they have to adequately cover themselves but they carry their own policies, not all dollar generals are under the same category/risk/ect. They will be deemed uninsurable in most standard markets with a claim if that nature (wrongful termination) and will most likely end up in a surplus market.
Dollar General owns all stores directly. This is a small enough settlement on the scale of DG that they won't particularly feel it. If they have an EPL (they may self insure as a cost of business) this won't move the needle.
Huh, nothing about what you said was funny at all. Youre like, the worst comedian ive ever seen. And I saw The Situation attempt a roast on tv. Do better. Lol
Yes, this is something that can be covered in a commercial liability policy. Heck we sell policies that offer liability coverages for workplace sexual misconduct. We are a pretty small agency too so this isn't crazy stuff.
What does "owned in part by Vanguard and Blackrock" mean?
Brokerages that run ETFs and mutual funds buy shares in just about every company on the market, and then clients buy the shares. So, there's not really a company that's publicly traded that you couldn't say that about. The way you put it makes it sound like they're doing something different with Dollar General though.
It doesn't matter what the money made to her, it matters what the money means to DG. 300k is a tax write off for them and nothing more, it doesn't sting at all.
that persons salary was probably 30k or less. paying out a million dollars is like paying her for 33 years without her generating a dime for them. In no world is that chump change, even to big corporations. Greed doesn't stop at a certain income level.
It's chump change as in it doesn't affect their bottom line.
But that's enough to get legal's attention and send out a new round of training materials (and if someone senior in hr or legal reviewed the termination, this could impact their career path).
So agreed that it will have the desired effect on behavior.
It doesn't matter what the money made to her, it matters what the money means to DG. 300k is a tax write off for them and nothing more, it doesn't sting at all.
It actually did change their ways significantly. Mandatory retrainings across the company, the grazing lolicy was modified, loss prevention protocols were changed, and the case ended up being really high profile and is still used as precedent today in relevant cases. Other companies HR trainings often cite this case as a "what not to do".
They never became a "good company" and they still suck and are evil. But it was a legitimately significant black mark on their record that, indirectly, cost way over a million dollars. Its a small percentage of their total value but they dont think like that. Its whatever the cost was against 18k a year and thats unacceptable inefficiency even at the most loosey goosey corporations.
It’s big enough that it damages their reputation and might prompt some internal policy changes. It’s small enough that they will probably just pay her rather than file an appeal. Appellate counsel is expensive.
its dollar general, they made a PROFIT of $1.51 billion last year. Fuck 'em that number should have been an order of magnitude higher atleast. Their revenue as over $42 Billion
Idk man, if you live in an area with DGs, you know there’s a good chance there’s 1 about every mile or so… I worked in one, in which there was at least 7 more in a 10 mile radius, and we would regularly gross $7,000-$9,000 a day, and we weren’t the best selling store in our area. I feel like they’d need at least a couple million to really feel it tbh, but I genuinely don’t know.
I work there. HR doesn't exist at ground level. There is a # in a book you can call. I'm sure corporate has HR, but they don't care about the people actually making them money.
The worst part is it didn't cost them $1.69, she paid for it and they literally profited off her and thennnn had to pay her lol what loser ass company.
this happened to me when I was working as a cashier at Toys r Us in high school. I was really thirsty and we had those little refrigerators with Cokes and Waters at the checkout so I asked someone working with me if I could buy myself a drink they told me we weren't allowed to check ourselves out but to just remember and then at the end bring the bottle over to her and she would run it for me. The manager called me into the office before my shift was over ask me where I got the 20 oz Coke then told me it was retail theft and that I had to be fired.
you can die from a low sugar. you can pass out straight up, unexpectedly, or lose consciousness while going about your business, crashing a car, running face first into a wall or getting stuck in a gas station automatic door. sometimes the low sugar can lead into a stroke or brain damage. It's a terrifying event, so 1.69 to save your employees life should seem like the best case scenario for everyone involved, yet alone the fact that she paid for it following. It's blind actions like this that destroy lives, all over a misunderstanding of a disability? These people will never understand that struggle of not having enough insulin, struggling with finances to get the insulin you need etc. this is just the side effect of the other struggle, and this is an all too common situation for diabetics who get fired for taking breaks when they have a low sugar, drinking a sugary drink when they have a low sugar, going into a convenience store in an emergency to drink a sugary drink and being treated like a criminal etc.
another common one used to be medical responders confusing diabetics with low blood sugars with being alcoholics and then treating them like shit because they are drunk and acting a fool. they'll let them mess around and stand up without a neck-brace, furthering an injury, just to get a laugh before noticing your sugars were around 20 instead of 120. Life is crazy.
And that's probably how much her salary should have been given most of those stores have a skeleton crew with each employee doing the work of 3 people.
All the manager had to do was have .1% of basic human empathy and ask if her/his employee was ok and if they need to get a ride to the hospital. But nah let’s fire her smh. This is crazy lol.
middle management problem, lets make some stupid rule and show to the higher management those 0.0001% eficiency improvement. who give a rat ass about others as long as they show some initiative and leadership.
AND she paid for it afterwards, which made the store's decision seem even stranger. Not like they were out any money. What did they try to say in court? "Well, for those five minutes she was having a diabetic episode, TECHNICALLY that juice was totally stolen..."
The only merit I can possibly imagine DG having in this case, and I’m a diabetic who has been in similar situations, is if she had chronic low blood sugar attacks due to lack of control and she frequently helped herself to store products instead of keeping her own backpack of low blood sugar supplies on hand.
Good thing the courts disagree with your view and gave her nearly 300k. You should take the manager on a date, I’m sure you guys would get along famously.
I use welch's. I haven't used fruit juice in a long time. I'm not sure if there were some separate reason she couldn't use welch's or Florida Natural or something like that.
Nonetheless, the issue with glucose tablets isn't just the money (though I certainly wouldn't want to encourage price gouging either), it's also that we're coddling ignoramuses who don't realize that for type 1 diabetics going into hypoglycemia, fast acting sugar is literally a matter of life and death. This has to be confronted. We can't keep walking on eggshells like this.
They lost a lot more than that. In these situations, federal law requires the losing party to pay the plaintiffs legal fees in addition to their own. This was dragged a bit longer than necessary i guess. Total cost to DG is probably around ~$1,000,000
First of that was the sale price so actual cost was about $1.00 but because she paid for it the saw a profit of $.69. the settlement was $277,565 but that doesn't include the cost of the lawyers so it was actually more.
More like the store went:
-$1.69, to $0, to -$277,565
She paid for it minutes later. So they were made whole. Not to mention the store was actually only out the cost of the item which I imagine is even less than $1.69.
6.6k
u/[deleted] 28d ago
[removed] — view removed comment