the money would mostly be going to her 11 YEAR OLD SON.

whelp, i know where i'm not shopping any time soon.

That's just awful. The company basically is saying "thankfully she was killed in our store because she's black" (collective sigh).

Are they at least taking this matter very seriously?

While its amazingly insensitive and stupid of them to take that tact...IANAL (I am not a lawyer but I have taken a business law course or two) but from what little I know about workman compensation law I don't think there is a precedence for a racial claim. Now damages from negligence at the workplace that would be a good one. If they can prove that the store did not have adequate safety procedures/policies, and facilities then they not only have a workman's comp claim but also a civil court case for additional damages.

Where is Jessy Jackson when we need him. Normally I think he's a self righteous prick, but here is the time that he should be active.

Wasn't the murderer a customer? And dealing with customers is part of her job, right?

Oh, and if I misunderstand something it's because I don't have the stomach to read the article.

Now I associate Dollar Tree with hate crimes the way I associate Chi Chi's with puking.

Pay up fucktards.

I hate to seem insensitive, but I must agree this wasn't work related. It seems this guy walked by, saw he stocking shelves, and went and killed her. It didn't arise over an issue relating to work. What sucks about these cases is they are the ones that test the law.

Ok, so there are several levels of fucked up going on here.

Dollar tree is trying to weasel out of their obligation through a technicality. So what jackasses! you have a problem with california law, either GTFO of california or plead your case with the system, don't take it out on the victims of a horrible crime.

The worst part of it all is dollar tree's argument - ostensibly that her BEING BLACK was what caused her to be killed, as if, as a black woman, you should expect that kind of thing.

As if that wasn't enough, the killer is, in a roundabout kind of way, on Dollar Tree's side. No matter how despicable the SOB is, they're using his words to determine whether or not the comp is paid.

Okay.. workers comp basics:

Dollar Tree is not denying the claim. Dollar Tree's workers comp insurance provider is denying the claim. Dollar Tree has no say in the process, at all.

I would presume that the insurance contract between Dollar Tree and the insurance company prevents Dollar Tree from vetoing an insurance company denial.

The insurance company is doing what they are supposed to do, as heartless as it appears. Workers comp is supposed to pay for workplace injuries. Whether this is a workplace injury is up for debate. A workplace injury is not the same as an injury that happens to occur while you are at work. (legal semantics, maybe, but there is a distinction.)

I'm not saying they shouldn't pay, I'm saying that its not a clearcut situation.. and I'm also saying that Dollar Tree has no say in the situation. So simmer down.

Injuries sustained in the line of work are workmans comp. If a driver is killed by a drunk driver IN THE LINE OF WORK, the workmans comp company cant say it wasn't part of the persons job responsibility. ANYTHING you do while on the job should be the responsibility of yoru employer while you are on duty, as long as the employee is doing assigned duties. The employee had no power to refuse to do the job she was asked, or if she had said, I do not feel comfortable because I think that guy is a racist, she would be fired. Dollar Tree's insurance company is acting on behalf of them, and Dollar Tree can immediately say, we will pay it from our funds, and we will be suing our insurance carrier for not fulfilling their contract to insure our workers while under our policy.

Has the world gone bereft of any logical and objective thinking? This is borderline irresponsible Ben, and I start to wonder about your grasp of legal theories. This is just one of a multitude of sensationalist postings where you strain the legitimacy of Consumerist.

If the girl was working, and someone came and shot her because she owed them $50 - would you take the same stand?

If the girl was ugly, and for whatever reason the person hated ugly people - and decided to shoot her because she was ugly - would that be a worker's comp claim?

What limits should be put on worker's comp claims? Is her physical presence in the Dollar Tree location the litmus test on whether they should pay out a worker's comp claim?

Consumerist is quickly becoming a platform of demagoguery rather than a representative force for consumers everywhere. You are diluting the Consumerist movement and brand with this nonsense.

Yes, we all are disheartened by these events, but taking an objective approach to something like this is not heartless - it's called logic.

Stop this sensationalist and intellectually dishonest nonsense Ben - I am BEGGING you. Please read some case history on worker's comp as well.

@Farquar: Legally speaking I agree with you. The definition for what constitutes Worker's Comp is still pretty blurry, so the insurance company does have a right to refuse comp because it's not injury from the workplace.

That said, it's still messed up. Insurance companies in general appear less interested in the welfare of their customers than making money from them and ensuring they don't have to give it up.

I hope the family does get the worker's comp.

@Farquar:
Although I applaud the creative thinking on the part of the insurance company, it flies in the face of decided administrative case law, most all of which has been affirmed on appeal.

The operative issue is whether or not she was on the clock, and acting within the "scope of her employment". Any collateral issues are mostly wishful thinking or delay tactics on the part of the insurer. As long as this was not a domestic issue, which in this case it was not, it's totally irrelevant.

Racial hatred is not recognized as a mitigating factor, nor do they in any way show any contributory negligence on the part of the employee/decedant. No precedent I can find anywhere establishes a basis for the company's denial of benefits. The company is also the recipient of bad advice, as they face potential exposure for not settling claims in good faith.

But remember, this is far from being decided. Any competent attorney with even minimal experience can successfully settle this claim. A good attorney can make it into a bigger settlement.

And trust me, there isn't any way that an insurance company lets this case go to a civil trial. Forget for a second that it's a clear cut case. A jury will award a fortune in punitive damages, if state law permits. If this were a Wisconsin, Minnesota or Illinois case, we would take it pro bono. This is why people hate insurance companies so much.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: The argument is not whether or not it is job related, it is whether or not the killing was personal. It's clear that this was not personal and therefore should be rightfully paid to the employee's heirs. If the Dollar Tree corporation has issues with those standards then they should seek a legislative remedy rather than put the screws to a deceased employee's heirs.

@etc: She was killed while working at the store. There was no personal motive at all. If there had been another black worker there instead of her, they would have been killed instead.

Heck, we only have the word of one seemingly nutty killer. She was killed at work by someone she had no personal connection to.

And yes, I would say the same thing for your "ugly" claim, too.

But then, I rudely haven't studied case history on worker's comp before responding to you, so what do I know?

@etc:

"If the girl was working, and someone came and shot her because she owed them $50 - would you take the same stand?"

That is clearly a personal motive and not the same as being killed because they are ugly, fat, tall, skinny, African American, Caucasian, etc.

Unless the Dollar Tree can demonstrate that the killing was personally motivated (which they are trying to do via her race) they are on the hook for the workers comp claim. This has been objectively and logically laid out in a number of articles on this situation. Perhaps more time spent reading them and thinking critically about this issue might be time better spent than practicing your own demagoguery.

I do not know if premeditated murder falls under the slip, trip, fall, or unusual circumstances standard and is covered under workmens comp. I do know this--the fucker should die, not get life in prison.

@jurijuri:

A good portion of "hate crimes" are rarely done to those that people have an ongoing rapport with. I think you are applying the wrong definition of personal. No different than a "personal foul" can be performed by someone that isn't a personal confidant.

Again, is her presence at work the only justifying and substantiating factor for the worker's comp claim? Perhaps her estate could sue Dollar Tree for gross negligence of some sort if they created the environment by which this took place. Altogether though, the claims that she does have are completely mutually exclusive to any worker's comp claim - and the refusal of the worker's comp claim doesn't preclude her attempts to get judgments through other means in the court.

People approach these things too emotionally - and it is exacerbated by demagoguery such as this. She doesn't deserve the worker's comp claim - the injuries weren't directly related to her job. There are other avenues her estate can follow to pursue her claim, and maybe even get some money from Dollar Tree. The reason they pursued the worker's comp claim first is because it is the easiest. Although there exists the doctrinal concept of election of remedies - her later claims might nullify the previous worker's comp claim, and/or if her estate sticks to the "work-related injury" pleading, it might preclude her other claims. I do believe most states allow you to request inconsistent remedies, although I could be wrong.

@Farquar:

I know that if someone is driving somewhere for their job (not commuting) and they get hit by another car, workers comp will cover those injuries, even though the other driver doesn't have anything to do with their job. Why wouldn't this be covered? She was at work, and was killed while doing her job (stocking shelves). The guy walked into the store looking to kill someone. Seems like they need to pay up to me.

@W10002:

Ummm, I don't understand the concept that a business entity should shit on their investors, and interest holders by following some misplaced concept of morality - dictating that they should blow their money under the auspice of philanthropy.

They have to legally decide whether or not they should pay out a claim. Under your standard, almost EVERY claim should go through - since we should only consider the welfare of the requester.

BTW: Can I have $100,000. If you don't give it to me, I might die. Aren't you concerned about my welfare? You must be more interested in making money than your fellow man, if you don't pay me.

@D-Bo: I agree it wasn't personal, but it wasn't b/c she was a Dollar Tree employee. According to the murderer who should have a needle in his arm:
"You know that he got up that morning, and he said, 'I'm going to kill a black person,' " said Deputy District Attorney Dane Neilson, according to a transcript of the hearing. "She was, unfortunately, the first person he saw, correct?"

"Correct," McGrew replied.

She was killed just due to the color of her skin, not b/c she was a employee of a store. I hate to equate it to a comedy, but in "The Jerk" Steve Martin's character was shot at at work b/c the sniper picked his name out of a book, not b/c he was pumping gas. I am just saying that it was not job related as if she had been shopping in the store rather than working, she would prolly have been killed the same, sad as it is.

@drdom: His point, though, is that we're saying "Dollar Tree sucks" when it's not Dollar Tree's problem.

@johnnya2: According to the article, she was stocking shelves, not serving the guy when he stabbed her.

@etc:
Um if she owed someone $50 then she knew that person, thus making it at least to some extent personal. This guy had never seen her before. The ugly scenario is the same as the racial one; not personal. And in that case, she was at work on the clock performing assigned duties when she was killed; if that is not covered by workers comp then wtf is the point? Not everyone works in factories where there is the risk of getting your arm severed; perhaps the risk assumed when working at a store like this is that any nutjob can walk in off the street during business hours and stab you. And guess what, workers comp insurance is the institution put in place to absorb this risk.

A hate crime is not a personal crime. If this were an angry ex-boyfriend doing the shooting, I'd say that was a personal crime and not covered by the insurance. But this was somebody who apparently wanted to kill a black person and saw this woman, who was exposed to this guy's attention by virtue of the fact that she was on the job. Ergo, I'd say workers' comp should cover it.

And although Dollar Tree may not personally have made the decision, they have the ability to pay out the claim regardless of what the insurer does, and lobbing off responsibility that way does them no credit. It's scummy, period.

@drdom:

"The operative issue is whether or not she was on the clock, and acting within the "scope of her employment"."

I hope you guys don't take the case pro bono, because you would be doing her a disservice, and most likely inviting a malpractice lawsuit to your firm. I'm not entirely familiar with the elements of a worker's comp claim, but I think it's fair to assume that the concept of proximate cause is thrown in there somewhere. Certainly, her presence on location and on the clock does not constitute proximate cause. A good example is Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. (605 S.W.2d 848) - which mostly deals with the election of remedies, but is a good example of someone who was hurt on the job, but had mutually exclusive claims as to what caused the injury.

I will, however, agree with you on the claim settlement issue. Although the willingness to settle has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the claim. BTW: Since you said you found no precedent - did you even look? Are you just here to drum up business for your firm? Because really - your post was a bit irresponsible.

BTW: I am not an attorney.

@johnnya2:

Wrong. Once again, sheer presence on the job is not enough to justify a worker's comp claim. There are plenty of situations where someone is on the job, but their injuries sustained wouldn't be a valid worker's comp claim.

@danno50:

Agreed.

I certainly don't contend that the individual shouldn't be punished. And I certainly don't contend that Dollar Tree shouldn't have to pay something - that is for the courts to decide. But this demagoguery has got to stop.

@picardia:

So - if she was wearing a bright pink shirt from Express at the time - which made her more visible - and thus by virtue of her wearing such a bright pink shirt, Express should have some liability regarding the killing as well...is that what you are saying?

@D-Bo:

What is your definition of "personal"? Any animus directed towards you as a person is "personal", is it not? People keep getting the definition of words mixed up, especially in a legal setting (malice is another example).

Put your theory to the test. If a non-African-American was working in that position, at the same time, doing the same thing - would they have been injured in the same manner? If not, then the murder was quite "personal" wasn't it?

The "fault plays no role" aspect of Worker's Comp Law makes no sense. I could be juggling a pair of scissors while hopping on one foot, and if I hurt myself, my employer would have to pay for it.

This is a tragic situation, but I don't see why Dollar Tree should be responsible to compensate anyone for it. Horrible things happen in life, and, unfortunately, sometimes there's no financial compensation.

@balthisar:

Thank you, that was my main point.

@etc: I agree with you as well.

@drdom: You speak a bit too broadly. It's not enough that an employee is on the clock and gets injured at work. If my wife is cheating on me with the checkout guy at CVS. I find out, get pissed.. go into CVS, drop a pack of gum on the counter, and while he's ringing me up I shoot him, it's not workers comp.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: I agree. When I saw the first post on this topic I thought "well this isn't 'personal' hence it must fall under Dollar Tree's liability" but now I see that doesn't make any sense. This woman could have been working anywhere, she could have been shopping, and she still might have been killed. It had nothing to do with Dollar Tree failing to provide a safe working environment. This is what *LIFE INSURANCE* is for, not workman's comp. You don't just sue whatever building your loved one happened to be standing in in order to provide for their family.

@johnnya2:

See the 'cheating wife' example above. Just being at work does not make any injury a compensable injury under workers comp.

You may disagree, but you would be mistaken.

For those of you that think this should be a valid worker's comp claim - let me pose a question to you.

If the killer had, instead, waited until she got off of work, followed her home, and killer her at home - would you still think it to be a valid worker's comp claim?

If the answer was no - you have no leg to stand on.

I always thought this was a pretty hard-and-fast rule. The employee was hurt while she was working there, on her shift, not doing anything besides working. This is as clear-cut as it gets.

@Meshuggina:

"fault plays no role" is not always the case.

But I agree with you, whole heartedly.

This is a tragedy - for sure - but why we insist on scapegoating Dollar Tree for this is beyond me.

I'm fearful, as unlikely as it is, of Dollar Tree being successful in defending their position.

@sonneillon:

Didn't you see him crying after Obama got elected - he wasn't crying out of happiness - he knew he was unemployed.

@etc: bereft is a good word. As is demagoguery. Kudos on word choices.

@D-Bo:

Read all of my posts - you are 100% mistaken, and your definition of personal is 100% incorrect. Perhaps you should spend less time being a smart ass, and reading. Please show me these "number of articles on this situation" that "objectively and logically lay out" this situation. I'm all ears.

I am thinking absolutely critically about the situation - and I am all ears if you find a flaw in my analysis. Until then, bring an argument instead of just insults.

@picardia:

Additionally, the family might prefer that the Dollar Tree not pay out personally.. This is stretching my workers comp knowledge, so it may not be entirely correct, but bear with me.

Any payment from Dollar Tree would come with a requisite waiver of liability that would prevent the family from suing Dollar Tree for more later. Dollar Tree wouldn't pay it without the waiver, and I suspect the family won't sign the waiver unless it's a crapton of money, much more than they are trying to get through workers comp.. (workers comp money does not come with a waiver of liability.. You just get the cash, homey)

Assuming they did pay, but didn't get the waiver:

In later lawsuits, typically any money received from insurance payouts may not be used to reduce your later award. So, if you win 1 million in a lawsuit against Dollar Tree, they can't say, well you got $100,000 in workers comp payments and only pay you $900,000. You get 1 million. However, instead of insurance, if Dollar Tree decides to pay, out of the kindness of their own heart, $100,000 to help cover expenses related to the death (and assuming there was no waiver of liability signed) any future jury award would be reduced by that $100,000.

So, the family would much prefer insurance proceeds as opposed to corporate morality.

This all presumes there isn't some workers comp rule I don't know, or some collateral source rule I'm overlooking.

@Sandtiger: how can it be deemed personal if it was for her race though? i mean while she is a person and that happened to be her color, that's like saying if i get stabbed for having blue eyes someone must have a personal vendetta against me. like son of sam killed brunettes, it wasn't personal he was just insane. to a racist, it's not personal. i would say it's even less personal and just as arbitrary as a "regular" murder where the victim usually know the murderer.

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: but dollar tree is arguing that it IS personal as a means to deny a claim. if that is their only criterion for denial, they are in the wrong.

@Tsubasa: so a lot of americans can't afford health insurance let alone life insurance...

@Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★:
@Tsubasa:

Just replying to both of you at the same time since it delves into related topics, but not all points are necessarily directed at both of you.

First: define "work related." The woman was at her job, working. The fact that her death was not specifically due to a work caused incident doesn't necessarily mean that it is not work related. She was killed while at work performing her work related duties, the incident is work related but not work caused.

Second, this is specifically for Tsubasa, attempting to get a claim paid out through worker's compensation is not a lawsuit unless a lawsuit is required to force the insurer to pay a justified claim. And the main issue at hand certainly does not involve Dollar Tree's "liability." Worker's compensation is an insurance policy, just like any other insurance policy including your mentioned life insurance policy. Life insurance may be insuring a life, but worker's compensation includes death, dismemberment, or any other random injury that occurs while on the job. Life insurance covers her because she died, worker's compensation covers as well since the death happened while working.

@etc:

Let me ask you a question, etc. If you break your leg at work, it's a valid worker's compensation claim. But if you had, instead, fallen and broken your leg at your home after you got off work, no, then worker's comp isn't valid.

So my question is...how is this any different from the question you posed yourself? Obviously it would have been different if she had been at home, but as it was, she happened to be at work when it happened. So yes, I feel this is DEFINITELY a valid claim.

@balthisar: Yeah, but if Dollar Tree WASN'T busy sucking, they could have said something like, "While our insurance company must hand all worker's comp claims, and we cannot speak about pending legal matters, we have established a college scholarship fund in our employee's daughter's name at Local Bank and invite all members of the community to contribute a dollar when they next visit our store. We are also in discussions with the local NAACP about sponsoring local anti-racism activities in our public schools."

Neither of these would be very expensive, and both would nip the bad publicity in the bud and make Dollar Tree look like the good guy here that's invested in the community and so forth.

@Eyebrows McGee: hand = handle

I can't add much to this right now because the only thought that comes to mind at this point is: are you shi***ng me? I've seen ppl get worker's comp. for the dumbest of reasons, being murdered while your doing your job seems like an automatic worker's comp case. Crazy companies!