37-year-old grocery worker David Warnes took a donut from an Entenmann’s box, ate half of it, and returned the other half to the box on the shelf. The Giant Eagle supermarket fired him — and bought itself a lawsuit. Mr. Warnes has Down Syndrome and, his mother explains, “impulsively” ate the doughnut without understanding the consequences of his actions. Somehow, this case got to a jury, which ruled in Mr. Warnes’s favor; the supermarket reached a settlement rather than risk punitive damages. “The lawsuit sought damages for lost wages, reimbursement for the difficulty Warnes would have in finding another job, emotional distress, embarrassment and humiliation.” “Warnes’ attorney, Timothy O’Brien, said his client was ‘very happy’ with the jury’s decision.” “‘He was pleased,’ said his mother, Carol. ‘[But] he doesn’t really comprehend the legal system.'” That makes two of us, at least in this case. (Torsten Ove, “Giant Eagle reaches settlement with former employee”, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Mar. 6; Robert Baird, “Grocery worker wins lawsuit”, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Mar. 5).
Press coverage does not indicate what steps the grocery will take to avoid lawsuits from customers. It is doubtful that a jury would accept the excuse that the chain can’t fire workers who impulsively create health hazards without understanding the consequences of their actions.
The good news, one imagines, is that the rights of the disabled are so strong in Western Pennsylvania that this case is apparently the best use of time for the Disabilities Law Project, who represented Mr. Warnes. But the result is counterproductive for the disabled. The supermarket, which hires hundreds of disabled employees, patiently worked with Mr. Warnes for nine years to try to coach and train him on appropriate conduct. That nine-year employment history was used against the company at trial. The plaintiffs’ lawyers suggested that it would be difficult for Mr. Warnes to find another job, apparently not recognizing the irony that the costs of making a charitable hiring of a disabled worker are raised by the threat of liability if one tries to fire the worker for failing to meet a minimum standard of behavior.
Comments are closed.