| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] |
MrsH2009
Thank you St. Gerard!
Member since 8/09 6631 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by jgl
Posted by KateDevine
Posted by Tilde
Posted by JennZ
Well maybe she shouldn't work in a public place where there is chance she could be around peanuts. Maybe an office setting, or a work from home job.
I think its silly.
Even in an office, I eat PB sandwiches all the time. We have parties with store bought food that could contain peanuts. . . I don't know what the solution is in this situation.
They would tell you that you can't bring it in if they decided to hire her. They do it in preschools and daycares already.
in the school my husband works in they have peanut free tables.
I think that if your allergy is that severe tat for her own safety she needs a job that doesnt have food in it or that allows food.
I think they could have def been more compasionate and not put her on the register ever
We have become a nut and seed free building at my school. It's not that there are so many cases, but one case that we have is extremely serious.
|
Posted 2/18/10 9:25 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
Palebride
I am an amazing bakist
Member since 5/05 13673 total posts
Name:
Lori
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by MrsH2009
Posted by jgl
Posted by KateDevine
Posted by Tilde
Posted by JennZ
Well maybe she shouldn't work in a public place where there is chance she could be around peanuts. Maybe an office setting, or a work from home job.
I think its silly.
Even in an office, I eat PB sandwiches all the time. We have parties with store bought food that could contain peanuts. . . I don't know what the solution is in this situation.
They would tell you that you can't bring it in if they decided to hire her. They do it in preschools and daycares already.
in the school my husband works in they have peanut free tables.
I think that if your allergy is that severe tat for her own safety she needs a job that doesnt have food in it or that allows food.
I think they could have def been more compasionate and not put her on the register ever
We have become a nut and seed free building at my school. It's not that there are so many cases, but one case that we have is extremely serious.
A few years back, there was a child in my school who died as a result of a peanut allergy. For anyone who doesn't think it's serious....it is. It's very serious. His life ended in middle school because he was allergic to peanuts.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 9:30 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by neenie
awesome- just another reason to make them raise their prices 
The thing is :
a customer began eating a candy containing peanuts that is sold near her register
That customer could have very well eaten that in her furniture section, too. Are they supposed to put a disclaimer "Do not eat anything in store- food allergies present?"
She didn't have a reaction just b/c she was near it, but b/c a customer was eating it. It was the customer that (unknowingly) put her in danger, not necessarily her job duties.
When i was PG, i would always snack b/c my blood sugar would bottom out... even when i was walking around the stores (and went to BRU quite often). I usually had mini reeses cups in my bag. If they happened to sell them there and i was near her while eating them, would that coincidence make the store liable? I feel horrible for her and her allergy- i can certainly appreciate how scary it must be- but i think this case is silly.
I just want to clarify from a legal standpoint why she has a case IMO. The point is that she was at a far greater risk of exposure to peanut dust at the register where the candy is kept versus in the furniture department. All the store would be required to do is provide reasonable accommodations. If you as a consumer came by eating a peanut butter cup and she was accommodated by being placed in a safer department like furniture, she would have no case because you are not liable to her and her employer did what they had to so they could reasonably accommodate her. You would be an intervening cause and since you don't owe her a duty, no one is liable. Considering it is a retail store and it is not unforeseeable that a consumer could come in with peanut butter and consume it while shopping, she assumes the risk by working there. This is why I think her claim about the worker eating a peanut butter cup won't fly.
I would absolutely take a case like this for that reason and my theory would be that the manager had a duty, since he was aware of her disability, to provide reasonable accommodations. Clearly, working at the register where she was a foot away from peanuts was not reasonable.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 9:31 PM |
| |
|
neenie
Member since 5/05 22351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by munchkinfacemama
I just want to clarify from a legal standpoint why she has a case IMO. The point is that she was at a far greater risk of exposure to peanut dust at the register where the candy is kept versus in the furniture department. All the store would be required to do is provide reasonable accommodations. If you as a consumer came by eating a peanut butter cup and she was accommodated by being placed in a safer department like furniture, she would have no case because you are not liable to her and her employer did what they had to so they could reasonably accommodate her. You would be an intervening cause and since you don't owe her a duty, no one is liable. Considering it is a retail store and it is not unforeseeable that a consumer could come in with peanut butter and consume it while shopping, she assumes the risk by working there. This is why I think her claim about the worker eating a peanut butter cup won't fly.
I would absolutely take a case like this for that reason and my theory would be that the manager had a duty, since he was aware of her disability, to provide reasonable accommodations. Clearly, working at the register where she was a foot away from peanuts was not reasonable.
I have a question though. If the defense is able to show even ONE circumstance recently of where she placed herself closer to a peanut-type setting than the manager placed her, then wouldn't that completely debunk her whole case? B/c (while i certainly don't doubt her allergy or the severity of it) I bet that probably wouldn't be all that hard to do.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 9:47 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by neenie
Posted by munchkinfacemama
I just want to clarify from a legal standpoint why she has a case IMO. The point is that she was at a far greater risk of exposure to peanut dust at the register where the candy is kept versus in the furniture department. All the store would be required to do is provide reasonable accommodations. If you as a consumer came by eating a peanut butter cup and she was accommodated by being placed in a safer department like furniture, she would have no case because you are not liable to her and her employer did what they had to so they could reasonably accommodate her. You would be an intervening cause and since you don't owe her a duty, no one is liable. Considering it is a retail store and it is not unforeseeable that a consumer could come in with peanut butter and consume it while shopping, she assumes the risk by working there. This is why I think her claim about the worker eating a peanut butter cup won't fly.
I would absolutely take a case like this for that reason and my theory would be that the manager had a duty, since he was aware of her disability, to provide reasonable accommodations. Clearly, working at the register where she was a foot away from peanuts was not reasonable.
I have a question though. If the defense is able to show even ONE circumstance recently of where she placed herself closer to a peanut-type setting than the manager placed her, then wouldn't that completely debunk her whole case? B/c (while i certainly don't doubt her allergy or the severity of it) I bet that probably wouldn't be all that hard to do.
If there was a question of the severity of her allergy and they can show that she regularly put herself in harms way, absolutely! Workers Comp cases do this all of the time-think of someone who says they cannot work because of a shoulder injury on the job, but they are seen golfing.
However, I think the case will be more about the fact that the employer failed to take reasonable measures to accommodate her. They had a duty to do that since she put them on notice. It makes her case stronger in fact, because there were duties she could and had performed that would be less of a risk and they would not accommodate her. Basically they were able to do so without incurring costs, but they chose not to. I feel that is where their liability stems.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 10:01 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 10:08 PM |
| |
|
eddiesmommy
best buds!
Member since 5/09 11524 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Im OK with the part of the suit where she was asked to be placed in a safer area of the store, and they blatantly ignored her, fine.
But the part about a store employee eating a reeses......COME ON.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 10:17 PM |
| |
|
MrsH2009
Thank you St. Gerard!
Member since 8/09 6631 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by eddiesmommy
Im OK with the part of the suit where she was asked to be placed in a safer area of the store, and they blatantly ignored her, fine.
But the part about a store employee eating a reeses......COME ON.
No employees or students in my building are allowed to eat nuts or seeds during the school day (there are four classes in my building with 40 students and 6 teachers.)
|
| Posted 2/18/10 10:31 PM |
| |
|
Tine73
Member since 3/06 22093 total posts
Name:
*********
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by JennZ
Well maybe she shouldn't work in a public place where there is chance she could be around peanuts. Maybe an office setting, or a work from home job.
I think its silly.
ITA!
|
| Posted 2/18/10 10:47 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
|
| Posted 2/18/10 11:09 PM |
| |
|
DRMom
Two in Blue
Member since 5/05 20223 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by ave1024
Posted by munchkinfacemama
She is in a protected class as a disabled employee.
Lets not jump the gun calling all peanut allergies a disability.
Land vs. Baptist Medical Center
This case the plantiff tried to sue a daycare center saying the daycare center refused to accomodate the plaintiff's peanut allergy and was discriminating against the laws of the ADA.
The court disagreed and it ended up in appeals.
Finally, Land asserts Megan is disabled under the ADA because Baptist regarded Megan as substantially limited in her ability to attend day care. Again, we disagree. In our view, major life activities do not include those activities like day care attendance that, although important to a particular plaintiff, are not significant within the contemplation of the ADA.
So you can't just assume that all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. It's up to a court to decide on a case by case basis.
If you read my comment, you would see that I never said that. This particular peanut allergy is a disability. Just like you can't say all people with vision loss, for example are disabled.
Second, I am discussing this particular woman as a protected employee under the ADA. The case you cited is not relevant here and can easily be distinguished because the plaintiff was a child in daycare. There is no duty for a daycare to accept that child, whereas the employer, knowing the employee had a peanut allergy, certainly does have a duty to accomodate her disability in a reasonable way. There were other duties that she was able to perform that were reasonable, and there was no reason for the manager to put her in the zone of danger when fully aware of the disability and other duties this employee could have performed safely. It was foreseeable that she would be exposed to peanut dust as a cashier with a peanut candy display not even feet away. If the employer took reasonable care to accommodate her, even if she fell ill, they would not be liable. However, they recklessly, knowing that she was this ill, put her in danger. THAT is what would make them liable for her reasonable medical expenses.
And the case you cited is off base because attending daycare was not a consideration of the ADA, but employment was clearly an important consideration of the ADA.
Last, you incorrectly interpret the case law to say that not all peanut allergies fall under the ADA. That is not what the case says. It said that daycare was not a protected right under the ADA. The peanut allergy is tangential to that case. To clarify-it was a consideration, but from my reading, the emphasis was placed on the so-called "right" being denied to the plaintiff due to the peanut allergy.
Michelle! You're awesome
|
| Posted 2/19/10 11:45 AM |
| |
|
DRMom
Two in Blue
Member since 5/05 20223 total posts
Name:
Melissa
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
I guess I'll step into the sanddbox, even though I am not an attorney. From what I know to prove "negligence" The party has to have been made aware that an issue existed, which this comapny was, twice, not only by being told but by the fact that this woman was admitted to the hospital twice for this specific issue. That is where I think their liability is.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 11:47 AM |
| |
|
nrthshgrl
It goes fast. Pay attention.
Member since 7/05 57538 total posts
Name:
|
Let's beat this thread to death, shall we?
Posted by DRMom
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
I guess I'll step into the sanddbox, even though I am not an attorney. From what I know to prove "negligence" The party has to have been made aware that an issue existed, which this comapny was, twice, not only by being told but by the fact that this woman was admitted to the hospital twice for this specific issue. That is where I think their liability is.
 to Munch
I don't think it would fall under worker's comp either. Her injuries may be covered but there is an issue of a disability accomodation which I believe falls to the EEOC.
Message edited 2/19/2010 2:03:57 PM.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 12:09 PM |
| |
|
lululu
LIF Adult
Member since 7/05 9511 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
I'm not sure I even care about the merits of the case but I think it's GREAT that she won. I am wondering if the manager is the same woman that accused me of trying to steal from BRU while trying to exchange a carseat. She made this accusation after my friends and family had purchased over $5k worth of merchandise off my registry. She was horrible and I complained up to corporate about her and nothing was done. Since then I have only shopped at BRU when a friend's registry has forced me too. They need better employee training and frankly if it is the same woman and she just cost BRU $3mm I would be over the moon happy. Good for that woman that she won!
ETA: oh i misread - I thought she WON. oh well - I hope she does win!!!
Message edited 2/19/2010 3:31:34 PM.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 3:26 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by DRMom
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
I guess I'll step into the sanddbox, even though I am not an attorney. From what I know to prove "negligence" The party has to have been made aware that an issue existed, which this comapny was, twice, not only by being told but by the fact that this woman was admitted to the hospital twice for this specific issue. That is where I think their liability is.
From what I've read, this lawsuit has nothing to do with negligence. It's about failing to offer reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 3:57 PM |
| |
|
MrsS2005
Mom of 3
Member since 11/05 13118 total posts
Name:
B
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by ave1024
Posted by nrthshgrl
It is on a case by case basis but EMPLOYMENT is a major life activity.
Yes. But the peanut allergy still has to be considered life threatening for it to be considered a disability.
I am saying not all peanut allergies are life threatening. That is what I meant regarding it being a case by case basis. According my my allergist, I actually have a peanut allergy. Am I going to die if I smell some peanuts at the carnival? No. Every case is different.
In the case I cited... they also came to a conclusion that the daughter's peanut allergy was not life threatening so the rules of the ADA did not apply to her.
Next, Land contends Megan is disabled under the ADA because her two allergic reactions at day care created a record of a substantially limiting physical impairment. We disagree. While Megan's allergic reactions "are evidence of a history of an impairment, they are not evidence of a history of a disability." Robinson , 101 F.3d at 37 (emphasis omitted); see Colwell , 158 F.3d at 645. As we have already stated, Megan's peanut-related allergy does not substantially limit her abilities to eat and breathe.
In the case regarding the woman at BRU, it will go to court. Lawyers of the plaintiff will argue it is life threatening. Lawyers of the defense will argue otherwise. A decision will be made.
It's not guaranteed a disability by any means.
It does not have to be life threatening in order to be considered a disability under the ADA. Also, since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Amendment Act, it will be easier for a person with a severe peanut allergy to fall under the definition of disability.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 4:08 PM |
| |
|
|
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by DRMom
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
I guess I'll step into the sanddbox, even though I am not an attorney. From what I know to prove "negligence" The party has to have been made aware that an issue existed, which this comapny was, twice, not only by being told but by the fact that this woman was admitted to the hospital twice for this specific issue. That is where I think their liability is.
From what I've read, this lawsuit has nothing to do with negligence. It's about failing to offer reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Exactly-that is the premise on which the plaintiff would prevail.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 5:46 PM |
| |
|
jenheartsrob
LIF Adult
Member since 5/06 1861 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by MrsH2009
Posted by eddiesmommy
Im OK with the part of the suit where she was asked to be placed in a safer area of the store, and they blatantly ignored her, fine.
But the part about a store employee eating a reeses......COME ON.
No employees or students in my building are allowed to eat nuts or seeds during the school day (there are four classes in my building with 40 students and 6 teachers.)
Agreed... for 3 years we had a student who was severely allergic to peanuts and the whole 'peanut free' table at lunch wouldn't cut it, so we were a peanut free zone while the child was in our care for the 3 years....
You have to do what you have to do to protect someone once you know there is a SEVERE airborne allergy.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 8:33 PM |
| |
|
butterfly20
Party of 5 - 2015
Member since 4/06 7390 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by MrsS2005
Posted by DRMom
Posted by munchkinfacemama
Posted by Kerie-is-so-very
I usually will not comment until I have read more than a news clipping about a legal issue (because so much gets twisted). However, I am going to venture out on a limb here and say that I am simply not sure whether she has anything more than a simple Workers' Comp. case. That she definitely has but Workers' Comp. does not exactly compensate for the intangible aspects of pain and suffering.
I am not very familiar with the workings of Workers' Comp-I thought you had to become injured on the job and not be able to come back to work.
I don't think she would get very much anyway-she has no permanent injury.
I guess I'll step into the sanddbox, even though I am not an attorney. From what I know to prove "negligence" The party has to have been made aware that an issue existed, which this comapny was, twice, not only by being told but by the fact that this woman was admitted to the hospital twice for this specific issue. That is where I think their liability is.
From what I've read, this lawsuit has nothing to do with negligence. It's about failing to offer reasonable accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Exactly-that is the premise on which the plaintiff would prevail.
the reasonable premises is the issue. It is reasonable to not serve peanuts on a plane which is self contained, it is reasonable to tell teachers and parents not to bring in peanut products where they do not have outside visitors- and when a visitor is scheduled they can be notified to not bring anything in.... A retail setting can not reasonably control all their customers which are coming in... this will be an interesting case to follow.
|
| Posted 2/19/10 11:44 PM |
| |
|
pandaworm
LIF Adult
Member since 8/08 1125 total posts
Name:
bethany
|
Re: Westbury Babies 'R' Us cashier sues over peanuts-THOUGHTS??
Posted by jenheartsrob
Posted by MrsH2009
Posted by eddiesmommy
Im OK with the part of the suit where she was asked to be placed in a safer area of the store, and they blatantly ignored her, fine.
But the part about a store employee eating a reeses......COME ON.
No employees or students in my building are allowed to eat nuts or seeds during the school day (there are four classes in my building with 40 students and 6 teachers.)
Agreed... for 3 years we had a student who was severely allergic to peanuts and the whole 'peanut free' table at lunch wouldn't cut it, so we were a peanut free zone while the child was in our care for the 3 years....
You have to do what you have to do to protect someone once you know there is a SEVERE airborne allergy.
it does say that the employee "broke policy" when s/he ate the reese's, so i'm assuming that they had some kind of policy in place to protect her (from the employees at least). i would think that meets the criteria for "making accommodations" in that incident.
"Thomas was hospitalized for a second time recently after a fellow employee broke policy and ate a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup on the floor of the store."
|
| Posted 2/20/10 12:04 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] |
