Albertson's owes her $200K because her supervisor denied bathroom breaks until she peed herself

[charlie]

A Marin County supermarket clerk who urinated on herself at the checkout counter after her supervisor refused to let her take a bathroom break is entitled to a $200,000 damage award, a state appeals court has ruled.

The woman, identified only as A.M., had returned to work at an Albertson's Inc. store in Fairfax in 2004 after undergoing cancer treatment that left her mouth dry and required her to drink water constantly. The store told her to let the managers know when she needed a bathroom break and they would cover for her.

The arrangement worked for more than a year. Then in February 2005, a new supervisor who had never worked with A.M. was on duty one night and turned down three of her requests for a break, saying the supervisor was busy.

After the supervisor hung up the in-store phone, A.M. urinated while standing at the check stand.

She cleaned herself in the bathroom and drove home in tears, contemplating suicide, the court said. Emotionally fragile from her childhood in war-torn El Salvador, her cancer and past experiences as a crime victim, she left her job soon afterward and was committed to a psychiatric hospital for several days, the court said. She returned to work in August 2005...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/10/22/BA6U1A9D8H.DTL&tsp=1

[MadMaddie]

1. We are living in 2009 right? WTF?

Did they fire the manager?

I am glad she won!

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Yes, she deserved to win, and more so, Albertson's deserves impetus to train their

supervisors not to be tyrants

[RKP5637]

2. Maybe if enough asshole managers get recognized this place will one day improve for people.

I come from a management background and if this supervisor were on my team he would get shown the door ASAP for incompetence.
:mad:

[tblue]

3. Marin County is the wealthiest county in the Bay Area.

This is unforgivable. So glad she won!

[dmr]

5. After 3 calls, & he hangs up on her?

Even if he didn't know of her condition, what kind of person would deny anyone a bathroom break especially after 3 requests?

No one is THAT busy. More than likely the jackass didn't want to ring the register. Maybe that kind of work is beneath him, the exulted supervisor.

[freeplessinseattle]

13. management often gets flustered at the registers

I've seen it as a worker and customer, but it is their job to be able to take over if need be. You'd think once they see how tricky it can be to do the peon work they'd respect the "lowly" employees more, but some do seem to think it is beneath them.

[RobinA]

31. You Are Right

I was a retail manager who started out in sales. I was a whiz at the register and realized pretty quickly after being promoted that I was starting to lose my whizishness. So I used to put myself on the register from time to time just to keep up the skills. Managers who had been hired straight into managment were a joke on the register.

[freeplessinseattle]

36. It is tricky if you're out of practice, but some like you

have been there and have a much better attitude. There's a super nice manager at my regular grocery store who took over once when I was checking out, and I felt so bad for him. He was so nice, and trying to do things quickly and smoothly, all while remaining pleasant, but all the different codes other cashiers had memorized he had to look up or ask about, and kept apologizing, seeming embarrassed.

I really felt for him, and would rather have a slower nice cashier who treats the other employees fairly than some putz who acts like you are ruining his day by wanting to spend some money.

[Brickbat]

6. I've seen it said here on DU and heard it said to me by self-described liberal or progressive people

that we don't need unions anymore.

[ThomCat]

8. We definitely need unions.

More of them, bigger and stronger than ever. But the unions need to champion transparency and oversight so "corruption" can't be used as a boogieman to demonize the unions.

[RKP5637]

18. Absolutely True!!! Unions are needed to balance the workplace to promote fairness! n/t

[Canuckistanian]

29. Unions. We need them now more than ever.

Employers are getting meaner everyday. Wages are falling even faster.

Organize!

(Proud former member of three unions)

[scheming daemons]

37. Well... a good lawyer turned out to be a good substitute for a union... $200K

$200K is likely better than any union rep would have gotten her out of it.

[Cerridwen]

38. 200K minus lawyer fees equals ???

Her union rep would have gotten her a fricken bathroom break if the supervisor didn't follow the contract (or agreement for her condition) and she wouldn't have wound up traumatized in the aftermath.

[intheflow]

64. Not to mention the cost for her stay

in the mental ward! I'm sure whatever Albertson's insurance she had (if she had any at all) didn't cover all those costs.

[quiller4]

73. $200K minus her legal fees =$180 . That was the contingent fee

agreement according to the AP story. Out of that $180 award she will pay taxes.

[Selatius]

40. A union would've prevented the entire situation in the first place. Think about it.

200,000 is a lot of money, but there is no price one could put on a person's sanity, and I know of no labor union that would absolutely tolerate an abusive manager denying a person a bathroom break. The woman had herself committed to a psychiatric center after the experience. A union gives workers a peace of mind in addition to other benefits, not just as negotiators in cash settlements between that worker and the employer.

[skygazer]

70. The UFCW is not a strong union

And it's getting weaker by the day. I know - I'm a member.

It's very difficult to get a grievance listened to and acted upon and even more difficult to get a resolution. The stores are huge, rich and successful and have scads of lawyers ready to stonewall and block every move you make.

I had a pay dispute that lasted almost 2 years. The company was very flagrantly breaking my contract - I was being paid $1 an hour less than my classification. You would think that would be cut and dried. Nevertheless it took 8 months for the company to agree to pay me correctly. It took another 2 months for them to do so and it took 8 more months to receive retroactive pay.

Albertson's is union but not all unions are equal.

[unapatriciated]

72. UFCW has gone through a lot of changes since I was a member and is not as strong as it used to be.

I spent over four months on a picket line a few years back (Southern California). I was one of the few who voted against the contract offered. Unions are only as strong as their members involvement.
Unfortunately most of my fellow employees crossed the line and went back to work during the second month of the strike. They were very abusive to those of us who remained on the picket line. They were also the first to complain about the new contract and blame the union for it.

[unapatriciated]

50. Employees at Albertson's belong to the UFCW.

This could have been a lawyer provided by the union. You do know it is not the union rep who negotiates in cases like this, it is the lawyer provided by the union.
So it is more likely than not that the union was involved in providing her the lawyer that represented her.

[mulsh]

48. Albertson's/Lucky stores have been union since I was a kid.

n/t

[anigbrowl]

7. I'm not sure this is such a good decision

"Albertson's appealed the verdict, arguing that it had accommodated A.M. for more than a year and that she should have told the supervisor about her medical condition or simply gone to the bathroom without permission.

But the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the jury had been entitled to find that Albertson's was at fault for not informing the supervisor about A.M.'s condition and need for bathroom breaks.

Although an employer may have accommodated a disabled worker's needs over an extended period, "a single failure to make reasonable accommodation can have tragic consequences," Justice Timothy Reardon said in the 3-0 ruling."

Really, I think the suit should be against the supervisor rather than the employers. I question how they're supposed to fully brief a new employee on every possible contingency ahead of time. The problem is that the arrangements that were in place were likely worked out verbally, so even if they said '...and if you are ever unable to raise the supervisor, just lock the register and head to the bathroom', they have no way of proving it.

$200k is chump change to the company I think, but what they're really fighting against is having to now go through every employees work records to check if they have past medical condition that might need future accomodation and put every possible verbal arrangement in writing - it'll cost them a few million in HR overhead, probably to no actual benefit other than to require employees to fill out forms for everything (like every time they call a supervisor or a supervisor receives a call from the floor).

[itsrobert]

9. She will probably see $120K of it after the Lawyers get their take

if she's lucky.

[TexasObserver]

34. That's a pretty good payday for her, and what she agreed to.

The attorneys earned it. They won the case at trial and they won it on appeal. Winning a trial is hard enough. Defending it on appeal is even harder.

[Hepburn]

47. That is bad news?

:shrug:

[whathehell]

11. Bulllshit...No one should have to plead "special circumstances"

to go to the bathroom...I hope the super and the CEO pee themselves silly.

[anigbrowl]

15. I am not arguing that they should

On the other hand, it's normal for a retail outlet to have some kind of arrangement in place so that registers don't close down randomly, leaving the customers with nobody to ring up their purchase.

[whathehell]

32. OK.

[Celebration]

12. I'm thinking the same thing

The supervisor was an asshole of course. I guess it was a "strict liability" type case. Apparently she did have actual $$$ damages.

[supernova]

14. "simply gone to the bathroom without permission."

What universe to you live in?

Do you not know that there are all types of jobs with supervised and scheduled breaks, including bathroom breaks, cashier being only one such job. No, you can't just go unsupervised and leave a cash register unattended.

The asshole supervisor needs to be reamed... repeatedly.

Good for this woman.

[anigbrowl]

16. The universe in which you re-read my 4th paragraph.

[supernova]

23. You seem to be

unnecessarily sympathetic to the "plight" of the company to fill out even more paperwork.

:thumbsdown:

[anigbrowl]

24. The 5th paragraph makes more sense after reading the 4th one

But as you say, I am not in favor of filling out more paperwork for its own sake, if this is not going to bing any real benefit to the employees - more likely, it's going to result in higher prices for customers and lower pay for the people who work there. The increased paperwork I refer to is the kind of stuff that makes people roll thier eyes whenever HR departments are mentioned.

[supernova]

57. You seem to lack empathy

for the employee here. What was she supposed to do? She could just as easily lost her job for insubordination if she went off to the bathroom unsupervised, even if she got another cashier to cover for her for 10 minutes.

It strikes me as incredibly dumb that the corp didn't learn the first time to put a policy in place for people who need to more frequently tend to their needs.

[Hello_Kitty]

19. In litigation, you go after whoever's got the deeper pockets.

It's part of the risk of doing business. Anyway, Albertson's should have trained both management and employees better. Clearly, the woman had a compelling reason to believe that she dare not leave her station.

[anigbrowl]

26. Indeed, which is something wrong with our tort system

I don't feel anything special towards Albertsons, but after a year of successful accommodation I think their position that they had acted in good faith is quite reasonable. I'd need to read the transcript to form a full opinion, but it just seems like a rather harsh punishment for naivete on the part of a new supervisor.

Personally speaking, if I sat on a jury I would have voted against such an award because my personal course of action would have been to close the register and then deal with the consequences after returning from the bathroom, rather than stressing over it until I wet myself. I don't grudge her the money or anything, but at the same time I don't see how Albertsons are liable for her particular emotional fragility as defined in the news report. I would be much more exercised on her behalf if (say) she had been fired or disciplined for going to the bathroom in such circumstances. But it seems as if they had actually been acting in good faith ever since this medical problem arose, and it seems like a pity that a year of correct and compliant behavior on their part wasn't taken into consideration.

[TexasObserver]

35. Your position is not logical and will never be the law.

It doesn't matter how many times the store did it right. Their liability is from the time they did it wrong.

Assume Jiffy Lube changes the oil of 1000 cars. They forget to put the plug back in the oil pan once every 1000 cars. They do it right 999 of 1000 times! That doesn't matter when the case is about the ONE time in a thousand they screwed up.

That's what this case is about: the one time they screwed up.

[MajorChode]

52. Just what exactly is "reasonable" or demonstrates acting in "good faith"?

Reasonable accommodation is federal law and doesn't end because the company hires a supervisor that doesn't know his thumb from his dick, and you only have to make your reasonable accommodation request once, not to every single dumassed supervisor that they company decides to hire. It's the company's job to educate their management about the law and employee's accommodation requests. If they aren't going to do that, they need to accept the consequences.

[TexasObserver]

33. It's a great decision. The responsible party is the store, not its employee.

The actions of the manager are the actions of the store. The store acts through its management, so you cannot separate the act of a manager as an individual with his act as a manager, when it deals with his job as a manager.

The store had the duty to inform the manager that the employee had permission for medical necessity use of the restroom. The manager also had a duty to use good sense, which he didn't.

This case is a good case. It stands for the proposition that managers can't run people like they're slave labor.

[Selatius]

42. In business law, the manager represents the interests of the employer.This case is in line with that

If the manager fucks up, the employer pays for it because the manager on duty is considered a stand-in for the owner himself or owners in the case of corporations. This has typically been so going back to English Common Law. This usually isn't the case if the manager does something contrary to company policy. Then the manager is on his own and likely out of a job, but if a manager does something wrong and it is not prohibited under company policy, the company as a whole is legally liable for that oversight.

If it is true that Albertson's made reasonable accommodations for said employee, especially under the dictates of the Americans with Disability Act, then Albertson's most common sense recourse should be to bring a lawsuit against said manager on duty assuming it can find a jury that will not find Albertson's negligent as far as not informing the new manager about said employee, but I say good luck with that.

In most cases, being negligent is no excuse. This is like putting out a ramp every day so that disabled guests can get through the front door, and then one day you forget to do it. The next person who is disabled and finds no ramp now has a valid claim under the law. The court's only objective then would be to find if the disabled person had his rights violated, not whether the ramp happened to be there 364 days out of 365 days.

[TexasObserver]

68. You are generally correct, with one significant error.

Even if the manager is committing an act contrary to company policy, the company can and usually is still held liable for that manager's acts. Example: an employee of Walmart sexually molests a child in a dressing room there. Clearly, that is a crime outside any company authorization, but the company will be sued, and the lawsuit will be successful, because even though the employee violated company policy, there are numerous avenues to find liability against the company.

The causes of action are many, but negligence in failing to train, failing to supervise, failing to make the area safe, failing to identify the perp's criminal past (if there is one), is clearly available.

An employee is a representative of the person or entity for whom he or she works, and that remains true even if they violate company policy. You're confusing the right of indemnity a manager has from the company for whom he works with respondeat superior. A manager has a right to complete indemnity from his employer if he is sued for following company policy, and he can be denied that right if fails to follow company policy. In the sexual abuse hypo I posited, the company might refuse to give the employee a defense or to indemnify him. They would defend themselves, however, in such a civil case.

In the case of the woman who wet herself, she could sue the company and the manager, and she could get joint and several liability against them. The company could refuse to defend the manager, but they are responsible for his actions, against policy or not, when such actions harm customers or employees.

[Hepburn]

46. Respondeat Superior ~~

~~ the employer is responsible for the conduct based on that theory.

"Respondeat superior" (Latin: "let the master answer") is a legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of employees performed within the course of their employment. This rule is also called the "Master-Servant Rule". ...

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=0&oq=Respondeat+superior&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4HPIA_enUS311US311&q=respondeat+superior+definition

[TexasObserver]

69. Thank you!

You always bring the good stuff.

It is worthwhile to note that whether an employee is acting in the course and scope of employment is often not as limiting as one might think. If your apartment security guard uses a pass key to let himself into apartments at night to rape tenants (true case), the apartment complex will be held liable, even though raping is not in the course and scope of his employement. Being in the complex and having access to the keys is in the scope of his employment, however. Since this is a fact question, the jury decides whether the company is held responsible for the acts of the employee, and with rare exceptions if a jury finds for a plaintiff, they find the necessary prerequisites for liability to attach.

[malaise]

10. Good

I wasn't asking for permission to go to the bathroom - fuck that. I wish she had received a million. I hope that supervisor lives a painful and cruel life.

[Nikki Stone1]

17. After the war on supermarket unions, you wouldn't believe what checkers have to go through

I talk to my old buddy at Vons and you would not believe the bullshit: happy-talk corporate meetings, supervisors watching to see that everyone bugs customers with "Can I help you" until the customers want to scream, and more restrictions in many areas. My friend and her co-workers are looking rattled, and the newer checkers are sub-par (ie cheap).

[Hello_Kitty]

20. I recommend the book "Void Where Prohibited"

Product Description

"I read this informative book with disbelief and mounting rage. Being denied the biologic right to urinate not only injures the kidneys but is probably a potent risk factor for heart problems. It has been amply demonstrated that work pressure, no-exit situations, and psychologic stressors predispose to progressions of coronary vascular disease. I can think of few stresses more intolerable than the pressures of a full bladder. Not even criminals in solitary confinement confront such torment. This is a vitally important book. It merits the widest dissemination. Without public pressure, such demeaning of human beings will not be halted."--Bernard Lown, M.D., Harvard School of Public Health

Although federal and state regulations require employers to provide toilets, government agencies, incredibly, do not require employers to permit workers to use them. Marc Linder, a labor lawyer and political economist, and Ingrid Nygaard, a physician specializing in urogynecology, place this regulatory breakdown in the wider context of the history of labor-management struggles over rest periods. They emphasize the physiological consequences that workers suffer when they are not allowed to interrupt work to rest or urinate. "



http://www.amazon.com/Void-Where-Prohibited-Urinate-Company/dp/reader/0801433908

Certain occupations, like teaching, have an extremely high rate of urinary tract and bladder infections. Not being able to pee when you need to on a regular basis poses serious health risks.

[anigbrowl]

27. That's good to know about. I also dislike the psychological implications of such control

Same reason I dislike the psychological implications of drug testing etc....it my not be deliberate, but it manifests as a way of asserting sovereignty over someone else's body.

[Ignis]

28. Interesting book. Thanks for the link. (nt)

[LoZoccolo]

30. I've actually thought about this in the context of businesses not letting you use their bathroom.

Our natural habitat would allow us to piss anywhere. But in places like Chicago where I live, most businesses won't let you use their bathroom.

[Turbineguy]

21. As they say at my school:

"He needs to take your management class!"

[nilram]

22. Appeals court had a 3-to-0 ruling. Smackdown! Ha! -nt

[graywarrior]

25. I hope she spends her food money at Publix, lol!

Bastards. Albertson's has crap at their stores.

[Sirveri]

39. Publix isn't out here in this area.

We have Safeway, Albertsons, and Raleys/Nob Hill. We also have smaller grocers depending on where in the SF Bay area you are, like Andronico's, Molly Stones, and Draegers.

No Food Lion, Publix, Von's, Piggly Wiggly, Harris Teeter, Kroeger, or Giant. (Can you tell I used to be in the Navy?)

[graywarrior]

45. Aye!

[KamaAina]

66. Albertson's itself has pretty much pulled out of the Bay Area

a regional chain is operating many of the stores under their original name, Lucky.

According to Yelp, the one where this happened is now an empty hulk. The supervisor involved is presumably pounding the pavement at this very instant.

Karma's a (female dog), ain't it?

[Sirveri]

71. I forgot about this, and it's true. I still have my Albertsons card.

Lucky's however is EVERYWHERE. So I wouldn't say that they're really doing bad. The only real major national chain still here is Safeway. WinCo is a bit further North. Foodmaxx (Absorbed Foods 4 Less) is I think owned by Albertsons, and there are still several of those still around. Most WalMarts don't have grocery sections, last I checked, but I personally boycott them.

[DaveinJapan]

41. How generous of them to say she could've gone without permission if she'd wanted to.

I'm sure that would've ended up well.

Certainly she'd have been bitched out, possibly terminated, and god forbid someone had robbed the register while she was gone...think Albertson's would've smiled and forgiven her?

Puleeze.

[TorchTheWitch]

43. I will never ASK to go to the bathroom

I'm a adult. I am more capable of determining when I need to relieve myself than anyone else is. I will TELL someone if necessary that I need to use the restroom so that I can be replaced for that time, but I will not ASK PERMISSION. I don't need to have a medical reason to use the restroom when I need to, and should never be required to divulge any medical reason why I may need to use it more frequently than whatever the fuck is considered "average". Some people may need to go more frequently than others either all the time or only periodically, and no one should ever have to explain why they need to go frequently either all the time or just those times that they're ill or taking a diuretic or drinking a lot of fluid or whatever.

I never asked permission in school and I'll be damned if I'll ever do it in the workplace. No one has the right to be the decider when someone needs to use the restroom - PERIOD. It is as degrading as it gets to have to actually ASK PERMISSION of someone to relieve themselves. No one should ever be allowed to have THAT much control of a person that they feel the need to ASK to be ALLOWED to use the restroom.

[Solly Mack]

44. If she had just left her post and gone to the bathroom she would have got in trouble

The "new" unaware supervisor would have written her up or worse.

The whole thing pisses me off. People being treated that way....having to ask permission to go to the bathroom, being forced to wait...even if the medical circumstances didn't exist, no one should have to ask 3 times.

I think she should have gotten more.

[havocmom]

58. SM, do you recall the thread from a few years back about clerks having to wear adult diapers?

I am short on time or would hunt that one up. Seem to recall it may have been in another country, but lots of replies citing problems with being denied bathroom breaks here in the US too. It was a real eye opener for many.

Perhaps Omaha Steve has some info on the subject. He is a DU treasure re workplace conditions.

[Solly Mack]

65. Yes! Cashiers at a grocery store. I forget which country.

[WI_DEM]

49. hopefully that manager is gone, too.

[pipi_k]

51. One thing supervisors should be aware of

even if their employees don't have an underlying medical condition...

It's unhealthy for the bladder/kidneys to hold in pee for too long.

I had never had a bladder infection until 1994. I got it, the doctor said, from holding urine in too long. He told me that when I had to go, I should go. I've always had an active bladder anyway, even from childhood.

What brought on this infection was my waiting too long because I worked in an office where I was often the only one there most of the day. There was a phone in the bathroom, but I felt kind of creeped out about going all the way in the back, leaving the front unattended each time I had to go. So I would hold it, and that's what happened.

Anyone who's ever had a bladder infection knows how utterly miserable it is. Now I pee whenever I have to, no matter how many times I have to do it, and I know where all the restrooms are in between my house and the "big city" where we do a lot of shopping and stuff.

Nobody should have to either hold it or pee their pants...that's just outrageous...

:mad:

[bsd13]

53. This is BS

Sorry, but she had every ability to simply walk to the bathroom take care of business and return to work. I can't count how many times I've been told I can't use the bathroom at work and just left and came back 2 or 3 minutes later. Honestly it's not that hard to tell the customers "Sorry I have an emergency to attend to" turn off the isle light and put up the closed sign and leave.

The supervisor should have been fired, but she shouldn't have been rewarded anything.

[laughingliberal]

54. Back when I was a grocery checker it was not allowed to leave the checkstand unattended

I don't know about now but I had to notify a supervisor who would come lock the register. Sorry, in her place, I would have feared retaliation for leaving without permission.

[pipi_k]

55. Yep, and that's a big problem

when the economy is so bad that employees are afraid to do almost anything that will cost them their jobs, and sleazy, greedy employers are taking full advantage of their fears.

I hate Big Business anyway, but this really stinks


Bastards!!!!! :mad:

[havocmom]

56. Those lowest on the ladder often do not have real rights

Many employers schedule and time bathroom breaks. If you INSIST on giving in to biology, it can become a serious threat to your ability to keep a roof over your head. Interview some people at call centers, even the ones run by big, successful corporations. You would be amazed. I know people who have to bring notes from doctors stating that 'yes, this person has to urinate more frequently than your workplace policies allow for'.

Hell, a pal who was an operator for MCI was not allowed out of her chair when there was a fire going on between the structural ceiling and the drop ceiling! There was a fireman with a hose standing on her desk. There was water running down the fireman, the hose, the drop ceiling all over her, and her computerized work station. The supervisors would not let her leave her work station until the computer finally shorted out. She had been shocked several times before that finally happened. When the fireman stepped on her hand, she was injured, but they would not let her leave her chair, they said she would be fired on the spot if she got up without permission! We think they actually were hoping she got killed, as she had turned the facility in on several occasions for violations of FEDERAL safety regulations and practices.

[KittyWampus]

59. when I was a cashier, there was a key left in the register. 30 years ago. Now you have to call

management to do it.

You can not just leave an unlocked cash register unattended.

[closeupready]

62. Sure, just open yourself up to a termination on grounds of insubordination; if this were Texas,

chances are, she'd get no unemployment, and would be homeless within weeks or months.

[madrchsod]

67. in the real world of today...you`d be fired in a heartbeat.

[VenusRising]

60. I actually had a clerk ask me if she could use the restroom.

I was in the check out line with my groceries, and the clerk whispered to me that she needed to use the bathroom and then asked me if it was okay if she went. I told her to go ahead and that I had no problem with waiting. She seemed so grateful that it made me feel bad. Who knows how long she had gone without a break? She was the happiest checker I had ever seen when she returned.

After reading this article, I feel really good about giving her the few minutes she needed.

When ya gotta' go, you gotta' go.

[closeupready]

61. Good. Serves them right.

n/t

[madmom]

63. When I was 20 ( oh so many years ago) I worked at a toy factory that was very

noisy. We had a system using lights high up on a pole to communicate any problems. The green light was a personal problem, red was mechanical. One night I wasn't feeling at all well so I flipped on the green light, after about 1/2 hour and no response and feeling worse by the minute, I flipped on the red light figuring it would get them there faster. Not only did it not work, but I fainted fell on the floor, woke up, stood up and fainted again, falling again, this time hitting my head (requiring 4 stitches). The only reason I got a response then was the lady working across from me saw what happened and helped me. THAT was how I found out I was pregnant with my first child. Like an idiot I didn't even think of suing the company, just pay for medical was all I asked. Years later I went back to try to get rehired, they said no because of that accident. They said the accident was my fault "because I was pregnant". I wish I was a smarter 20 something back then, because I wouldn't be worrying about money right now.:banghead: