Dollar Tree Agrees to Pay Previously Denied Benefits in Hate Crime Death

[RamboLiberal]

Source: ABC News

Three weeks after a slain woman's family went public with her employer's refusal to pay out death benefits because she was killed in a racially motivated attack on the job, the company offered a settlement to the woman's son.

In a statement e-mailed to ABCNews.com, Dollar Tree's vice president of investor relations, Tim Reid, did not detail why the company reversed its decision to deny death benefits to Taneka Talley's family, but said that Dollar Tree had offered the full worker's compensation benefit permitted by California law.

"While we were advised that the claim would not be covered under the state worker's compensation law," Reid wrote, "we feel this is the right thing to do for Taneka's son."

Talley was stabbed to death in the Fairfield, Calif., Dollar Tree where she worked in March 2006 by a white man who reportedly attacked her simply because she was black.

While Talley's mother is thrilled this fight is nearing an end, her lawyer says Dollar Tree didn't offer the full amount.

-----

Stagliano told ABCNews.com last month that Talley's death benefits were denied because the killer's targeting her as a black person established a "personal connection" that the company claimed releases them from having to pay.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6432015&page=1

---

What b*stard for dragging this family through this! How is this different than being killed by a robber while on the job? The lady didn't know the racist sick MF'er who killed her. I feel for this family. Dollar Tree execs and their f'ing law firm ought to be hanging their heads in shame! Well, another store I can avoid!

[downindixie]

1. I'd relly like to say something,

but I'm too pissed right now!

[bertman]

2. Boycott those assholes. If they don't see the light, at least they can feel the heat.

[LostinVA]

3. It's about time -- the SOB

[skeewee08]

4. I want to respond to this but don't no what to say

this may be one of the few times I am speechless, this makes me sooooooooooooooooooooo MAD! When is this craziness gong to end!

[williesgirl]

5. I will NEVER shop there again and will pass along to anyone who'll listen. rec'd

[zelta gaisma]

17. i'm right there with ya

[happyslug]

6. Was her death the result of her employment?

If the answer is NO, then she she is NOT eligible for Workmen's Compensation. One is only eligible for Workmen's compensation if the act that disabled someone, was somehow related to work. The Classic case is the boyfriend who walks up to his ex=girlfriend on her job and shoots her dead for having told him she was leaving him. Did the shooting have anything to do with her employment, except that is where she was when he shot her? If the answer is NO, then no workmen's compensation is award-able (This depends on whatever the state law is, this appears to be the rule in most states).

Now, there is an exception to this rule, where the actions of the employee as an employee of the employer permitted the killer to kill the employee. Classic case, the employer and other employees saw the killer sitting in the waitress rest area, where he was NOT suppose to be, and left him sit there till the victim entered the rest area. The Killer then shot the Victim. The Court ruled since the Killer would NOT have had access to the employee except by the non-action of the employer, the employer was liable to pay workmen's compensation. A similar case was where the killer knew the employee was the only employee of the employer who went to people's home to measure for pads for tables. The killer then rented a house is a false name and ordered such pads, knowing the employee would be the person who would come, when she came, he killed her. The employer was held liable for it was the nature of her job to go to such places, the fact that the killer was laying in wait to Kill her did NOT make it a private cause of action, for the nature of her employment put her in a position to be harmed.

Notice the rule, if the injury was the result of a private quarrel, that the employer had no control over, the employer is NOT liable, BUT if the employer do to his action or inaction OR the nature of the employment put the victim in a place where the killer can injury the employee, the employer is liable.

Here, Cracker Barrel is relying on the first test, the killer entered the store to kill a black person, any black person. The fact that the first black person he saw was an employee of Cracker Barrel did not make Cracker Barrel liable. Cracker Barrel did NOT put the employee in any danger, other then her being a black person. This was a private quarrel, the killer wanted to kill a black person NOT an employee of Cracker Barrel, thus Cracker Barrel is NOT liable for this death.

My position is that the reason the victim was killed was do to the fact the Employer put her in a place where the killer could get at her. While this was NOT foreseeable by the Employer and the Employer had no way to know the Killer was looking for a Black Person to kill, the employer is still liable for the employee was at her employment position for the purpose of doing what was necessary for the benefit of the employer (i.e. wait on the customer). This is NOT a private action for the Killer had nothing personal about this particular employee, she was just killed for she was black.

I suspect Dollar Tree Workmen's compensation carrier (Which may be Dollar Tree itself, I do not know, but I do NOT think so) wanted to use the defense that this was a private action. Cracker Barrel quickly realized this was a publicity disaster and paid up out of its own funds instead of the Insurance funds. The issue is interesting, when is an employer liable for the death of an employee, when the death is the result of an attack by a third person and the intention of that third person was against the employee NOT the business itself?

[RamboLiberal]

7. I can see the argument here but

in cases like this companies should look first at doing the right thing instead of trying to weasel out on a technicality.

[LisaL]

8. They didn't have a personal connection. She did not know the man,

and the man did not know her. If there was a personal connection, then the company wouldn't be obligated to pay her benefits, but they did not know each other. This man killing her because she was black does not make it a personal connection because apparently any black person would do.

[happyslug]

12. I agree with you, and that is the position I took in my comments.

But I wanted to explain the legal logic being used, that the problem was whether the incident was truly related to her employment. I see that it was, but I can also argue the opposite, remember the employer did NOTHING to put her at risk except employing her.

[varkam]

13. I think that "personal connection" in this context just means...

a connection having nothing to do with the workplace. If it were just some random act of violence, it would still be considered a "personal connection"

[happyslug]

16. That is the argument the Insurance company is making, but the cases point otherwise

A random act of violence that ends up injuring an employee, is a foreseeable employment event and thus covered, the cases that exclude coverage basically are cases where the employee is injured by someone he or she knows AND the act was against the employee as someone known to the attacker as opposed to any employee. i.e. Boyfriend goes to his girlfriends place of employment, walks in and attacks the girl. Please note if the business left him sit in an area where non-employees are NOT to be, the cases have held the employer is liable for why did the employer leave the boyfriend sit in an area where non-employees are NOT permitted?

This is a real touchy area of the law, but it is clear, the killer in this case wanted to kill the first black he ran across. There was nothing the employee or the employer could have done to stop him. Furthermore the employee was in a place she was suppose to be. Given these facts it is hard to call this a personal advent, the killer did not go after the victim because he knew her, in fact he never meet her before. The victim was at the wrong place at the wrong time, just as if some robbers entered the building to rob the store, again she would be in the wrong place at the wrong time, but most people would NOT call that a personal event, it would be an event fully expected by employers and the employee would be covered. This situation is closer to such a robbery then the boyfriend shooting his girlfriend and as such should be covered by Workmen's Compensation.

[happyslug]

20. Duplicate

No text (n/t)

[Breathe]

9. Cracker Barrel?

How did this get from Dollar Tree to Cracker Barrel? Did I miss something?

Plus, you'd be hard put to find a black person in Cracker Barrel (at least working there). They don't call it Cracker Barrel for nuthin'. They have a long history of their own of racism and homophobia. They denied employment to blacks, denied waitstaff positions and later management positions to blacks, systematically fired every "known" gay person throughout the chain and put an ammendment on their health insurance that if you were ever treated for AIDS they would only pay for if you could prove you'd gotten it from a blood transfusion. Hell, I love dumplins as much as the next girl but there aren't enough dumplins in the world to make me go to "Cracker" Barrel.

[happyslug]

11. I have no idea, but I did correct it later on, should NOT type things after working all day

I did correct the mistake later on in my thread, but I notice I missed the earlier mistakes. For some reason I had Cracker Barrel on the brain.

On further recollection I believe one of the cases I read on this subject dealt with Cracker Barrel, and I believe that is the case where the killer waited in the waitress waiting area and killed the employee.

Further reading, Dollar General is NOT self-insured, Specialty Risk Services is their Workmen compensation Insurer (Owned by Hartford Insurance).
http://arlenejones.blogspot.com/

[struggle4progress]

18. Violence in the workplace (Retail, Wholesale, & Department Store Union -- RWDSU):

... Homicide is the second leading cause of death to American workers, accounting for 912 deaths in the American workplace in 1996, 15 percent of all workplace fatalities that year. Annually, almost 1 million people are victims of violent crime at work. Workplace violence accounts for 1.8 million days a year of missed work and more than $55 million annually in lost wages.

The retail industry, where a large number of RWDSU members are employed, has an above-average risk for violence in the workplace, due in part to the possibility of robbery at retail stores. Stock handlers, baggers, sales supervisors and sales clerks are among the top five occupations at risk of violence in the workplace ... http://rwdsu.info/violence-workplace.htm

[happyslug]

21. But that is common in retail, and as such part of doing business

Remember the rule that the employer is NOT responsible for an act of a third party against an employee only applies if the EMPLOYER did NOTHING, other then hire the employee AND the killer killed the employee for some reason other then she was working at the time he entered the store. Here the employer did hire the employee, but the employee was KILLED not because someone she KNEW entered the store to kill that particular employee, but any black. The later situation is the cost of doing business and the cost must be carried by the employer NOT the employee (remember we are discussing who will bare the cost of this employee being killed, the employee, i.e. her family, her her employer).

The general rule is if you are killed on the job, it is work related UNLESS it is clear given all the evidence that the killed was NOT work related. In the cases I cited above, the employer was held liable of he failed to protect the employee (The case where the boyfriend laid in wait) and even when the killer set up a situation when he knew the employee would be the person sent out to him (The case with the woman who did the patterns for table pads, her ex-boyfriend used a false name and address to set up a situation where the employer would sent the employee he wanted to kill, when she was killed the employer was held liable, for it was the type of job the killed employee would normally go out on and as such part of her job and thus the employer was liable).

Thus Random acts of violence come under the general rule, that employers ARE liable, for such random acts are the one of the many cost of doing business. The exception to this rule is when someone killed an employee for reason that had nothing to do with her employment AND was do to some dispute independent of her employment. It is a very narrow exception that the Hartford Insurance company wanted to exploit.

[struggle4progress]

22. I completely agree: see my #19 below

[cstanleytech]

10. Legally why should they have even had to pay?

Not talking ethically mind you as ethically I think offering to pay and or setup a trust fund for her children would have been the right thing to do right off the bat by the company.

[eilen]

14. Why is it so hard to reflexively do the right thing?

Is ethical decent behavior so foreign to corporate entities?

[happyslug]

15. This is a Workmen's Compensation claim, permitted by law

Workmen's compensation came out of the situation that existed in the late 1800s, employees had the right to sue employers for injuries incurred on the job but only if they could overcome the "Three evil Sisters" of the Common Law (None of which existed prior to 1800, all three developed as part of the Industrial Revolution to protect industry from lawsuits, lawsuits that had occurred for hundred of years under the Common Law, but as the 1800 progressed were viewed as anti-business and thus the "Three Evil Sisters" were invented in the 1800s to protect business.

The "Three Evil Sisters" were:

1. Assumption of the risk

2. Fellow Servant rule

3. Contributory negligence.

1. The assumption of the risk doctrine said an employee assumed the risk of any injury if such injury was POSSIBLE in the job, even through if due care was done by the employer such injuries could have been prevented.

2. The fellow Servant rule was that employers were NOT liable for the acts of a fellow employee, even if the act was inherently dangerous

3. The third and biggest one was the contributory Negligence doctrine, that if the employee was even just 1% at fault and the employer was 99% at fault, that 1% was enough to prevent the employee from recovering anything from his employer do to the negligence of the employer.

Labor hated these rules and fought them, and as the 1800s progressed more and more people learned about them the hard way. Finally Juries learned how to handle such cases, first make a factual findings that the employee assumed no risk, that no fellow employee was at fault and that the employer was 100% at fault (i.e. the employee was not at fault to any degree). These findings of Facts undid the three sisters and forced the court to resort back to historical liability law, which industry opposed.

Finally Industry agreed with Labor that the compensation for Workers injured on the job was getting out of hand (notice only after Juries started to work around the above three sisters to the detriment of Industry). Labor saw the switch in Juries, but also saw Juries finding as a fact one of the three sisters still applied and workers getting nothing. Thus labor and Industry had the Federal Government and the States to pass workmen's compensation laws. Injuries were given set values and determination of payment was taken out of the court and into Board of Workmen's Compensation. Such Boards preferred to make payments over time rather then the lump sum payments of the traditional Court system (On the ground someone may recover and payment could then stop, this was found to be cheaper in the long run then giving people a set of money for their injuries).

The problem here is the victim was KILLED, and workmen's compensation has a set value on people who died on the job (In New York State for example it is only $6000, which is all that worker who was trampled to death on Black Friday in New York State will be getting). California appears to be more generous, one commenter said up to $400,000, which is NOT what Dollar Tree is paying (This is a continuing dispute as to amount, remember it is the Hartford that is setting the value and the Hartford is saying it is less then $400,000). Now some of the compensation is based on her age and what is expected she could have earned over the rest of her life (less the cost to earn that money and to live).

Remember their is 2080 hours in a 40 hour per work work year. If we assume she was earning $7.15 per hour that comes to $14,872 per year. If we assume a 50 year work history (17-67, people forget that under the 1982 Social Security "reforms" people born after 1955, the retirement age is 67 NOT 65 which what it has been since the Great Depression), that comes to $743,600 dollars. Now we have to reduce this by living expenses she will not incurred (Remember she is DEAD). That is the problem Dollar Tree and the Insurance Company is arguing over (as is the family). How much should the $743,600 dollars be reduced by to reflect living expenses the deceased will not incur? Remember this is income she would have received (And the present value of that amount is also a factor, present value of $743,600 at 6% interest is only $40,368.83).

Do to all these calculations the various state boards has a tradition of paying out the money for injuries no one will ever recover from and leaving the family determine how it is to be spent. Such payments end workmen compensation cases quickly, much like how courts award one time damage awards.

[struggle4progress]

19. If y'work in retail, y'have an elevated risk o'exposure t'wackos -- just like chemical industry

workers as a group have an elevated risk o'exposure t'toxins or construction workers have an elevated risk o'injury from falling

A certain fraction of th'public is simply nuts -- so if anybody, whose job involves meeting lots and lots o'strangers, will meet more crazies than somebody whose job doesn't involve meeting lots o'strangers

Th'death o'this one particular individual wasn't predictable -- but as a statistical matter, such deaths are not uncommon

She died from a known hazard of her job