Dollar Tree To Murdered Black Employee: Drop Dead

Prosecutors say Taneka Talley was killed while working at Dollar Tree because she was black, and now Dollar Tree is denying her 11-year-old her worker’s comp because they deem racially-motivated murders on-the-job to be “personal” and not “work-related.” Empathy costs more than a dollar, it seems.

Firm denies workers’ comp in racial killing [SFGate] (Thanks to Kevin!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. katieoh says:

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

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

  2. se7a7n7 says:

    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?

  3. Sandtiger says:

    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.

    • katylostherart says:

      @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.

      • Valhawk says:

        @katylostherart: The point they’re trying to make regardless of the morality of it is that she was killed because she was black not because she worked at the dollar store.

  4. sonneillon says:

    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.

    • lpranal says:

      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.

    • SynMonger says:

      @sonneillon: He’s on the unemployment line, since racism is over now. Didn’t you hear? We elected Obama!

  5. KyleOrton says:

    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.

  6. Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

    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.

    • D-Bo says:

      @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.

      • Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

        @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.

      • etc says:


        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?

        • CharlieInSeattle says:

          @etc: If she wasn’t working in that particular dollar store, would she have been murdered? Then it was job related.

          • etc says:


            That is patent absurdity. That would inclusive of any and all claims that happen, and there wouldn’t be an exception. The exception DOES exist, and courts have said it applies. Sorry.

    • Tsubasa says:

      @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.

      • katylostherart says:

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

      • eXo says:

        @Tsubasa: I agree 100%.

      • CharlieInSeattle says:

        @Tsubasa: Depends, does Dollar Tree have a no weapons policy like my company has. Yes they are so anal about it, they gave a co-worker shit because he had a leatherman on because he’s in IT and frequently goes from cutting open server boxes to installing stuff on said servers. Someone saw him use the knife portion to cut open a box and reported him to HR. So if they have a no weapons policy like that, then she couldn’t defend herself, then the onus goes to the company to provide adequate security. Did they do that? If not they should pay.

    • Aesteval says:

      @Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★:

      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.

    • Roclawzi says:

      @Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: If she was at home sitting on her couch eating Funions (mmmmmmmmmm, funions), she would not have been killed. While a racially motivated attack has nothing to do with the Dollar Tree, it was conditional to her job that she be exposed to the public. She was in harm’s way because she was doing her job. A police officer killed by a drunk driver who happens to run into him while he’s patrolling the streets was not killed because he was a police officer, but he sure as hell was on the street as part of his job. Same thing, even though it seems a negligible risk, jobs that require you to interact public do continually put you at risk from the very public you serve.

      • etc says:


        Getting your mail involves you going out into public as well. Do you sue the Post Office if you get hit by a car doing it?

        • aphexbr says:

          @etc: Do the Post Office pay you to stand there? Probably not, so it’s a dumb comparison.

          It’s quite simple in my eyes. This woman was being paid to face the public. While doing so, a guy killed her. Whether the guy decided to kill her because she was a Dollar Tree employee, because she was black or because she was female, it doesn’t matter as long as it wasn’t due to her bringing personal business into the company. A random attack by a stranger is not “personal”..

          The issue is this: workers’ comp guarantees payout to heirs unless the death was motivated by personal reasons (e.g. the employer can’t be held responsible if an ex-boyfriend comes calling). Dollar Tree (or their insurance) are trying to claim a racially motivated attack was “personal” so they can get out of paying – that’s twisting the rules somewhat.

          She did nothing personally to initiate or encourage the attack, so Dollar Tree should pay out as those are the rules for non-personal attacks. If nothing else, you can argue that it was their failure for not providing adequate protection for the employee while she was carrying out her duties. She was in harm’s way due to her work duties, ergo she gets compensation for death during those duties. Simple.

          • etc says:


            Actually – as was already pointed out by a number of commenters…this issue was already decided in California, and racial animus was considered a “personal” attack.


          • etc says:


            ” femmesavante
            1:56 AM

            Unfortunately, this has been addressed in California. Compensation is not allowed when the assailant was motivated by racial or other factors specific to the victim. See State Compensation Ins. Fund v. W.C.A.B. (Vargas/Macias), 133 Cal. App. 3d 643, 653-657 1982).

            For those non-attorneys who enjoy citing cases, try to cite relevant controlling authority. “

        • eXo says:

          @etc: very nicely put.

        • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

          @etc: No, but I bet you the mailman would ask for worker’s comp if he got hit while working – regardless of if the driver was intentionally trying to hit him. And he’d get it too.

      • Jabberkaty says:

        @Roclawzi: Good point.

        I was actually torn up about this one for just the reasons Git Em SteveDave loves this guy pointed out. But you’re right. Great example.

    • bobloblawsblog says:
    • orielbean says:

      @Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★: If she wasn’t working there that day, he would not have seen her and killed her. Work related?

  7. Farquar says:

    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.

    • W10002 says:

      @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.

      • etc says:


        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.

    • drdom says:

      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.

      • balthisar says:

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

        • Farquar says:


          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.

          • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

            @Farquar: That, however, WOULD be a personal issue. (At least, again to disclaim, in my state.)

            If your wife was cheating on you with the CVS guy and you walked into the nearest random store (not CVS) and shot the nearest random person with testicles, that would not be personal.

            • etc says:

              @Eyebrows McGee:

              So really – your contention is regarding whether or not the murder was personally motivated.

              This is some language I found regarding the exception…

              “An insurance carrier is not liable for compensation if the injury arose out of an act of a third person intended to injure the employee because of a personal reason and not directed at the employee as an employee or because of the employment.”

              The more I research, the more I am convinced that you are wrong. In fact, the breath of the exception has INCREASED over time, not DECREASED. In theory, workers comp is supposed to be “no fault”, but “no fault” doesn’t extend to injuries caused by third parties. Perhaps not-articulating that was my real error.

              Looking further, it also seems as if that the burden of proof lies on the claimant to dispute the personal exception.

              “when an issue is raised through sufficient evidence of an exception, the burden shifts back to the claimant to prove that an exception does not apply. Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeal No. 91029, decided October 25, 1991.”

              Each state’s statutory exceptions might be different, including yours, but every single one that I have seen is quite similar.

              Ultimately, based on just the wording above – the exception would seem to apply. The examples that people have been giving regarding what “personal” means is dicta, and merely conjecture. I guess we would have to look at common law to see if there was a dissection of what issues might or might not count as “personal” reasons. But a cursory glance through Westlaw seems to uphold the theory that animus is personal…which would be logical.

              Another morsel that might be of interest to you. At least in Texas, the standard of review of a WC claim is abuse of discretion.

              This case, however, might be precedent regarding unilateral personal-reasons (animus). Let’s not dummy this down and make this a race baiting case – because it isn’t about race. The people that are against this aren’t racist – they want the laws applied fairly and equitably.

              Here is a bit more for your consumption:

              “For a claimant to recover under workmen’s compensation statute, injury must have occurred while claimant was engaged in or about the furtherance of his employer’s affairs or business, and claimant must show that the injury was of a kind and character that had to do with and originated in the employer’s work, trade, business or profession. Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 8309, § 1.”

              In fact – in the following case:

              Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hampton (414 S.W.2d 712)

              They had to create an exception to the exception, because the killer was insane.

              You want me to keep going?

              “Although one’s employment may be occasion for wrongful act or may give convenient opportunity for its execution, general rule is that injury does not arise out of one’s employment if assault is not connected with employment, or is for reasons personal to victim as well as assailant” Villanueva v. Astroworld, Inc., 866 S.W.2d 690

              Let’s go to another state, shall we?

              “Fact that employee’s injury is the result of willful or criminal assault of third person upon employee while employee is engaged in work of his employment does not necessarily prevent injury from being accidental within meaning of Georgia’s Workmen Compensation Act” Sands v. Union Camp Corp., 559 F.2d 1345

              Hell – since you came in here guns ablazin’, or eyebrows ablazin’ as the case might be- let’s continue!

              “Some injuries are not compensable under Workers’ Compensation Act, including those under the “personal animosity exception,” which includes those injuries that arise out of an act of a third person intended to injure the employee because of a personal reason and not directed at the employee as an employee or because of the employment. ” Walls Regional Hosp. v. Bomar, 9 S.W.3d 805

              It seems as if the exception is only nullified under the standard that their injury was “exacerbated by or incidental to a duty of employee’s employment”. Certainly mere presence wouldn’t satisfy that requirement. The only exception to this that I can find is where the inherent location of the employment exacerbated the situation (when the man worked in a VERY secluded location).

              I’m sorry Eyebrows – but Federal and Texas case law just don’t match up to your arguments. But…if this wasn’t enough, I am more than welcome to keep on researching for you!

              • etc says:


                Let me look into Sands. I think Sands could be interpreted to support your side. We’ll get to the truth here somewhere :)

              • angryhippo says:

                @etc: Man, if you could apply that thorough work to a job… Must be nice to have all of that free time to research.

                • Farquar says:


                  I get the impression that etc is a law student that really likes being a law student.

                  I think he said he wasn’t a lawyer, so the only explanation for all the free Westlaw searches is a student westlaw account.

                  • etc says:


                    To be frank – I hate the law. I just hate demagoguery.

                  • etc says:


                    You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t ever intend to practice law in my life though. Perhaps I have access through other means?

                    What – you don’t like me anymore Farquar? ;)

                    • Farquar says:


                      I don’t like you any more or less then I did 24 hours ago.. (I didn’t know who you were 24 hours ago.) You seem capable of reading comprehension, and have the gift of coherent thought. That puts you ahead of a solid 70 percent of most people, so you are alright in my book regardless of your opinion.

                      I wasn’t being negative in my comments, so don’t take it as such.

                      I’m basing my comment on your student status on two things:

                      1. Lawyers do not care enough to look up that much information for a random bunch of commentors. I care enough to point out blatant misstatements of the law, but I’m not spending time doing research. Law students, on the other hand, love to find the answer.

                      2. Westlaw searches aren’t cheap. Last I heard the charge was $80 per search. Unless of course, if you are in law school, then its free. So, either you’re in law school, or your boss is going to be pissed off at the end of the month.

                    • etc says:


                      Frankly – I did the research because other individuals that claim they are lawyers, decently articulated a position antithetical to mine. I did it for myself. If I make a claim, I will try to research it and back it up – to me that is the responsible thing to do. I’m not as diplomatic as most people – but I don’t like basing a stance on conjecture. I’ll readily admit that I misstated a few things, but I still stick by my original presence – and the ever erudite femmesavant seemed to vindicate my original position.

                      The reason why I mentioned that I am not a lawyer is because I DON’T want my words to be taken as having any kind of legal authority whatsoever. I’m merely a layman that takes interest in these matters. I wouldn’t take part in this site if I didn’t support the premise of Consumerist – but I still feel very strongly that these types of articles do Consumerist no good.

                      I work for myself, so I have a bit of freedom to waste here and there with this type of dialog. Admittedly, my interest far exceeds the wherewithal of most. Conceptually, the law has always fascinated me – but for the procedural and administrative stuff – count me out.

                • etc says:


                  I have jobs – multiple jobs in fact. Sometimes I do break away just to have some lively dialog online. It’s good for the soul. Sometimes I make friends, sometimes I don’t – but that’s life isn’t it?

            • Farquar says:

              @Eyebrows McGee:

              Eyebrows: I’ve not been involved in that little side debate. I was only saying that such a broadly worded statement: “If an employee is on the clock and gets injured they are covered” is incorrect.

          • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

            @Farquar: If you kill the CVS guy, its a domestic problem, and thus “personal” as they are calling this case.

            Totally clear that it’s not worker comp related there.

            However, this woman was minding her own business did not know her attacker and was just randomly killed off the street. I’d call that bad luck, but surely not personal.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          @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 (now with double the baby!) says:

            @Eyebrows McGee: hand = handle

          • etc says:

            @Eyebrows McGee:

            Why in the world would they do that? In fact, why don’t YOU do that if you feel so strongly about it. Because you had about as much to do with her death as Dollar Tree does.

            What I find so humorous is how quickly people will give away someone else’s money. Have any of the individauls that are vilifying Dollar Tree given a cent to this poor woman, instead of exploiting her?

            They only look like assholes to those that don’t think logically – and relegate their analysis to emotionalism.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              @etc: Amusingly, you answered your own question in your complaint:

              “Why in the world would they do that? … What I find so humorous is how quickly people will give away someone else’s money. … They only look like assholes to those that don’t think logically – and relegate their analysis to emotionalism.”

              Those emotionalists would be (as you have complained) THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE. Those would be DOLLAR TREE’S CUSTOMERS. Why would they do that? GOOD PR. Good PR leads to more customers. Bad PR leads to fewer customers. I assume you can do the math.

              (And I don’t “feel strongly” about it; I’m simply saying what, if Dollar Tree were my client, I’d suggest they do to head off this ugliness that isn’t just awful PR — someone’s been shot in your store! you’re refusing to pay her cute little daughter who’s been orphaned! — but is going to come off sounding racist and is going to draw activists.)

              But I think I understand now why you’re having difficulty with understanding workers comp law: “Because you had about as much to do with her death as Dollar Tree does.”

              Workers comp has zero to do with assigning fault. (Well, that’s not entirely true, particularly when we starting talking repetitive stress injuries, but for this situation it’s true enough.) If Dollar Tree was at FAULT for her death, there would be a civil lawsuit for the family to bring. A workers comp claim does not assign fault and does not assign blame; its merely compensation for being injured at the workplace. In most states, random assault by a customer is explicitly covered. The statutes are long and boring, but not particularly difficult to understand.

              • etc says:

                @Eyebrows McGee:

                Again, if that were really the case – why do we have so many cases that treat worker’s comps claims as mutually exclusive of other claims surrounding them? There is also a precedent for subrogation of benefits once other claims are paid…how do you explain that?

                Fact is, the personal exemption applies. I am not speaking of civil liabilities, because those can be pursued through negligence claims etc.

                • quizmasterchris says:

                  @etc: Etc.: Are you an industry troll, or just a philosophically right-wing jackass?

                  • etc says:


                    How am I an industry troll for pointing out that Dollar Tree is justified in the law? Because you don’t like that it is? Why would you take it out on me?

                    As was stated by another commenter – there IS governing common law – and it has ruled on the side of racial animus satisfying the personal exception.

      • etc says:


        “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.

        • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

          @etc: Out of curiosity, and having read all your comments in the thread, why are you so desperately vested in this NOT being a worker’s comp claim?

          And I AM an attorney, and while I can’t speak outside my jurisdiction, in MY jurisdiction, your definition of personal is wrong; others have been using it correctly. This would not be a personal issue presenting valid grounds for denying the claim — at least not on those grounds.

          I think you may even be slightly backwards — the employer has no civil liability (as it was obviously not at fault), but that doesn’t excuse the employer from workers comp.

          Finally, if the injury wasn’t typically covered by workers comp, the insurance company wouldn’t be attempting to get out of covering it by insisting it was a “personal” attack. Claiming that race excuses an insurance company from coverage is so frankly appalling that the company has to have no other gambits to attempt. (“Well, if you didn’t want the burglar to break into your house, you shouldn’t have been Asian! Claim denied!”) I look forward to a strongly-worded rebuke from the appropriate judge or administrative hearing dude.

          • etc says:

            @Eyebrows McGee:

            Because I am tired of the demagoguery that is going on at this site. And the cadence of your response shows that you do care, unless you are feigning it. Let me reference your own quote:

            “Yeah, but if Dollar Tree WASN’T busy sucking…”

            Why don’t YOU stop sucking, and create exactly what you propose? You make a business justification to a moral argument.

            I DO have experience with worker’s comp claims – and the standard does include some concept of proximate cause. Mere presence on the job, and in the line of duty does NOT itself fulfill the standard necessary to make a worker’s comp claim “implicit”, as you claim.

            In your missive, you managed to create a strawman to attack…so now I wonder about your motives, and how vested your interest is. I never made any claims regarding the validity of race itself – you can substitute race for any other indelible trait, and my conclusion would be the same. Stop race baiting and make a legitimate argument.

            You are also constraining the word “personal” too much, that is the point. If the action was motivated by some sort of personal animus, it constitutes a personal attack. You are unnecessarily, and inaccurately construing personal to mean just personal relationships, and that just isn’t quite accurate.

            I don’t worry about civil liability – as I stated prior, her estate has an election of remedies problem ahead of her. The case I cited in another thread is a perfect example of this. If, indeed, you were correct the claims would not be, in fact, mutually exclusive. As a licensed attorney – can you explain that particular distinction, because it doesn’t seem to coincide with your theory well.

            I will concede that it isn’t quite as clear cut as I may be treating it – but the claims that it is clear cut the other way is just patently false.

            • Eyebrows McGee (now with double the baby!) says:

              @etc: “Why don’t YOU stop sucking, and create exactly what you propose?”

              Until you can discuss things civilly and without personal attacks, and WITH actually reading the posts and article in question, I don’t propose to further engage with you.

              • etc says:

                @Eyebrows McGee:

                I used your own words against you in jest – these WERE your words, weren’t they? How could you deride me as making personal attacks when I jokingly using your own words.

    • c_c says:


      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.

    • lrbreckenripple says:

      @Farquar: Bullshit, you fucking grinch.

    • GoVegan says:

      @Farquar: If that is true then I can only hope that Dollar Tree if fighting their insurance company on this and threatening to take their policy money elsewhere if they don’t pay up! What I am wondering though, if she was white, would they have paid the claim?

  8. johnnya2 says:

    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.

    • Git Em SteveDave loves this guy->★ says:

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

    • etc says:


      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.

      • johnnya2 says:

        @etc: The fact she was injured in the ACT of doing her duties makes it a workmans comp claim. PERIOD. I can not speak for the laws in all states, BUT if you want an extreme example, a football player for the Detroit Lions was hurt while playing football and made a workers comp claim as an employee of the Lions doing his job, he was hurt by a person employed by somebody else. The woman was doing her job, and had no ability to refuse to do that job, so she clearly was injured doing her job. The only situation where a company could claim otherwise is if you were not doing something you were supposed to be doing. If the customer had knocked her off the ladder she would have those rights. He just knocked her off with a gun

    • Farquar says:


      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.

    • rushevents says:

      @johnnya2: No, Dollar tree’s insurance company is acting on behalf of themselves.

      The company does not have a say in the final decision.

      Don’t believe me? Try getting your company to override your health insurance company’s decision to not pay for cosmetic surgery. Or any other of their decisions for that matter.

      • johnnya2 says:

        @rushevents: Actually if my company PAID the premium for allowing cosmetic surgery, and they decided on their own to deny it, they have a easy BREACH OF CONTRACT suit. The company paying for the insurance determines what is covered. An insurance company can not offer a policy that says co-pays are $25 and then say , we want to change it to $30 without a NEW contract. Insurance policies are contracts between the insured (Dollar Tree) and the insurance company.

  9. etc says:

    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.

    • juri squared says:

      @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 says:


        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.

    • D-Bo says:


      “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.

      • etc says:


        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.

        • eXo says:

          @etc: Thank you for providing a logical response to this. So many articles on here blame companies for every single thing that takes place even near them. There are so many ‘heart-string’ words attached to this to evoke a quick emotional response. Race, her 11 year old son, and a senseless killer are all used to vilify Dollar Tree.

        • angryhippo says:

          @etc: There is the possibility that your smart-ass responses are encouraging people to argue simply because they like to poke the bear in the cage.

          • etc says:


            That would assume that I really care that much, and am not on here simply to have some intellectual discourse. One might say that I am undiplomatic – I certainly wasn’t blessed with the most commendable trait of diplomacy. Sorry if I seem acerbic, I am passionate about my beliefs, but I don’t intend to insult. :)

      • rushevents says:

        @D-Bo: You said 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.




        • etc says:


          Once a case has been laid out that there is an exception – it is the burden of the claimant to prove that the exception doesn’t apply.

          • trujunglist says:


            Your eloquence with the English language is extraordinary. It’s nearly on the same level as your douchebaggery.

    • c_c says:

      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.

    • Farquar says:

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

    • lrbreckenripple says:

      @etc: I’m BEGGING YOU…quit being a dick for ONCE in your life.

    • Robert Synnott says:

      @etc: Her job exposed her to random lunatics, so…

  10. Barney_The Plug_ Frank says:

    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.

    • etc says:



      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.

      • unobservant says:

        @etc: I think that your use of the word “demagoguery” has got to stop. You own a dictionary. It pays to increase your word power. We get it.

        • etc says:


          The reason I have used it so much is because it is especially poignant in this case. This is demagoguery, plain and simple. If a more fitting word applies, let me know, and I will change it up just for you. I am disheartened to wouldn’t even make a suggestion while telling me not to use it though ;)

  11. picardia says:

    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.

    • etc says:


      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?

      • picardia says:

        @etc: How would that possibly apply to a worker’s comp claim? You seem to be confusing worker’s compensation with more general liability.

        • etc says:


          Disclaimer: I am speaking strictly from the perspective of Texas law – California law might be different.

          Two reasons:

          Worker’s comp settlements typically preclude settlement in other areas – although she still has a right to plead in the alternative. Here is a case I referenced earlier laying it out…

          Bocanegra v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 605 S.W.2d 848

          The other reason is because the theory by which she recovers on the worker’s comp claim may be wholly inconsistent with later claims.

          Negligence itself is a wholly different issue, although most likely the worker’s comp settlement precludes her in some form of bringing another claim.

          I really think it just depends on how strict the state is on their pre-trial procedure- would res judicata apply?

          • picardia says:

            @etc: You don’t seem to be arguing from any legal perspective at all. The question is whether or not Dollar Tree’s insurer should pay worker’s comp for her injury, which is all that seems to be in front of us right now. I say that yes, they should, because she was exposed to the risk by virtue of her employment. You countered by asking if I would find the seller of her shirt liable because it was bright and attracted attention. I pointed out that this would be another claim altogether, one that is not suggested in the information given to us. And you responded with — a muddle, really, but apparently a suggestion that if she collects on workers’ comp she may not be able to collect on other claims. This is true, but it in no sense affects my initial statement (this is appropriately covered by workers’ comp) or illuminates your confusing question about the pink shirt.

    • Farquar says:


      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.

  12. Meshuggina says:

    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.

    • etc says:


      “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.

  13. etc says:

    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.

    • Petra says:


      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.

      • etc says:


        You completely missed the point.

        The reason I used this analogy is because it forces you to think about the proximate cause issue. If in fact it was Dollar Tree’s fault that she was killed, even if she went home, the claim would still be valid. This is absolutely no different than if you were stocking shelves, and when you got home, you pulled your back because of the constant strain you had at work.

        Hence, if you said no to the above example: you have no leg to stand on – because you can find no proximate cause of her injuries related to her work.

        Her presence on the job alone does not constitute a valid worker’s comp claim.

      • Mary says:

        @JiminyChristmas: it’s more dramatic to say “Dollar Tree” instead, I guess. Even the article has: “The boy’s grandmother, the child’s legal guardian, said Specialty Risk Services is taking the position”. Dollar Tree has to stand with them since they are their company but it’s not their decision.

    • Stonecutter says:

      @etc: You’re right. It wouldn’t be a valid workers comp claim because the act occured outside of the workplace. But that is not the case here. Workers comp insurance is in place to protect from injuries AT THE WORKPLACE.

      I agree that the correct villian is the insurance company, not Dollar Store, but dude get off your high horse.

  14. karan1003 says:

    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.

  15. gwong says:

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

  16. gc3160thtuk says you got your humor in my sarcasm and you say you got your sarcasm in my humor says:

    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!

  17. JiminyChristmas says:

    Once again, it is not Dollar Tree who is the bad actor here; it is their workman’s comp insurer. According to the article (Hey, I read it!) that company is Specialty Risk Services.

  18. WillG says:

    They have a website.
    There is a contact us page on their site.

    I suggest you let them know how you feel and how it will affect your shopping at their stores.

    I did.

  19. femmesavante says:

    Unfortunately, this has been addressed in California. Compensation is not allowed when the assailant was motivated by racial or other factors specific to the victim. See State Compensation Ins. Fund v. W.C.A.B. (Vargas/Macias), 133 Cal. App. 3d 643, 653-657 1982).

    For those non-attorneys who enjoy citing cases, try to cite relevant controlling authority.

  20. Squeezer99 says:

    if only she had been conceal carrying a pistol…

    • AmericaTheBrave says:


      That wouldn’t have accomplished a damn thing. If you’re in a store stocking shelves you’re not expecting a customer to run up and stab you. Do you think she had time to reach into her magical oversized pocket and pull out a gun and shoot the attacker?

      Concealed weapons advocates are just NRA nuts. All weapons should be banned.

  21. brettshow says:

    Here is what i just sent to through their site mail:

    It is absolutely deplorable that your insurance company is not paying out the claim to the little boy whose mother was murdered because of her race. Even though it’s your insurance company that made this decision, the fact that you aren’t reaching out speaks volumes about your business ethics and practices. I will make a point to never shop in one of your stores if this is the way you treat the people that help to keep your company in business. Negative publicity will cost more than paying a quarter million in benefits to help this family.

    I encourage everybody to go to their site and contact this, this is absolutely one of the worst thing I have heard a company do in recent times, that poor 11 year old kid.

  22. Gatcha_Journalism says:

    Well, boycott their insensitive asses and I’m sure they’ll get the point.

  23. OprahBabb says:

    zOMG! Can’t we all just get along?

    Keep. Hope. Alive.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Man, did I just write their corporate offices a nasty email…I can’t believe the nerve of some companies these days. I hope those of you motivated enough to comment to also write them nasty letters/emails and do the less evil thing and just drive to the WalMart a few blocks down.

  25. dialing_wand says:

    Any company that sees its employees at people, irrespective of the economic state, would find a way to help support a boy who’s mother died on the job. Irrespective of how they died.

    What can we do to do help if they [company] won’t? (Quite seriously here… one person at a time is enough of a difference for me.)

  26. qcgallus says:

    @Farquar: @etc: “Why don’t YOU stop sucking, and create exactly what you propose? You make a business justification to a moral argument.” Seriously?

  27. hardtoremember says:

    They have the opportunity to do something right and good and take care of their employee’s family. Most companies seem to care about this much about their employees. There is one right down the street from me and I won’t shop there anymore.
    Sears doesn’t have to do what they do for their Nation Guard employees but they do. Being a good company is more than just doing what you have to.

  28. jono_0101 says:

    The woman wasn’t killed as a result of her job, she could have just as well been a customer shopping there and been the one this guy picked to kill. Dollar Tree is not at all liable for this woman’s death when it comes to worker’s comp, but the right thing to do would be to take up a collection and put a jar out at all area stores to collect donations to help out the family. As far as the law goes though, they aren’t obligated to do anything.

  29. Parting says:

    She got killed on the job, there’s is nothing personal to it.

  30. RurouniX says:

    Not to sound like an ass but I’m sure some brain dead morons will flame me anyway. This is a tragic thing that happened…I feel sorry for her son. Really.

    But are you guys really and truly outraged that a company isn’t just handing out free cash to their employees? Honestly you people baffle me with your mock “outrage.” Businesses are out there after their bottom line…if they weren’t they’d be a charity. Learn the difference.

  31. itmustbeken says:

    My wife worked in Risk Management for a very large retailer. Its a long story, but a woman was murdered at a store and their insurance carrier advised it was within their right not to pay anything to anyone.

    It took the management about 5 minutes to say it wasn’t right to do that and paid all benefits to the family plus extra for the funeral costs. Not one mention was made about publicity or anything, it just wasn’t right and they knew that.

    Point being, Dollar Tree management is involved in this decision as well. The insurer advises the client on its right, it’s the corporations decision finally. It reflects their corporate culture. An ugly and crass culture.

  32. TruthAndTheory says:

    Doesn’t ‘personal’ mean that you have a one-on-one beef with someone, over an argument you may have had? For it to be personal, the two must know each other. This wasn’t truly personal, nor was it truly work related. However, perhaps the store should have a security guard. In this case, the fact that it happened at work should take precedence, and Dollar Tree should pay.

    In the whole scheme of things, a mere $250,000 for a life is not much to pay for a nationwide corporation.

  33. rafe1230 says:

    I have read every post here. I live/work in Ohio and my personal experience would tell me this would not be a valid WC claim. Sad to say, but true.

    On the other hand, I feel that employers should be just as responsible as they expect their employees to be. I happen to work for such an employer. A young man under my supervision was diagnosed with cancer a few years ago in August. From the day he was diagnosed, he never came to work again. My employer paid him weekly until he died in December of the same year. Did he have to? NO. But, he respected the value of a good employee that served his company well.

    Does Dollar Tree legally owe this woman’s heir something. No. But should they be respectful of the life that was taken while being in their employment and on the job, no less? I feel they should do something! Whatever that may be, it should be something.

  34. Corporate_guy says:

    Sounds like a simple question.
    If a customer causes your injury, does workman’s comp apply?

  35. pwillow1 says:

    This is such a sad thing to read about, especially when one considers that the number one cause of death for women in the workplace is HOMICIDE.

  36. 2719 says:

    If a contract clearly states that death or injuries due to skin color (racially based) crimes are excluded they should not pay a dime.

  37. synergy says:

    He didn’t know her, but he killed her. It’s not personal. Does worker’s comp apply? I don’t know. It might if the legalese doesn’t list off exactly what worker’s comp covers.

  38. Valhawk says:

    Her estate can pursue a wrongful death claim against the man who murdered her, but it appears that the denial by the insurance company is legally correct, and regardless of morality that’s what counts.

  39. rushevents says:

    Ummm. Truth in advertising here:

    Dollar Tree is not denying the claim. Their insurance company is denying the claim.

    Come on let’s get a little editorial control here.

    Oh and as an HR Manager I HATE insurance companies too.

  40. AmericaTheBrave says:

    This scumbag company has lost my business for good, and I hope they are reading these comments. Boycott Dollar Tree.

  41. layton59 says:

    Life in prison is too soft for murderers. I think if you murder someone you should be relieved of all of your organs for transplant.

  42. edrebber says:

    Only the killer knows why they murdered this woman. The decision not to pay the claim is being based on the word of a murderer. More than likely a jury would diregard the testimony of a murderer. The jury will also be outraged that a company is using the testimony of a murderer against the family to deny a claim. It’s unconsionable for a company to turn the words of a murderer against the interests of the family.

  43. motojen says:

    While all of this mock outrage, wailing and gnashing of teeth is very entertaining, it’s all useless. Sending hate mail to Dollar Tree and their insurers isn’t going to put clothes on that little boys back or food in front of him. How about expending some of this energy on writing a check for a fund in his name? Or does outrage end where the bank account begins?

  44. radiochief says:

    No matter what their insurance company says– corporate should put up the money nonetheless.

    Geez, maybe the chain would get some good PR from this.

    Yes, I know the law (now from reading here, at least in Cali) and that it’s all legal not pay this out. But really, how would this cost Dollar Tree to pay outright. Worker’s Comp (here in MA) pays 55% of your salary. How GD-much could this amount be…?

    Yeh, people decry socialism when it’s for banks. Well, capitalism eats its own also.

  45. BrewMe says:

    If it were any other African American, that person would have been killed, thus it was not personal. Just racially motivated.

  46. Anonymous says:

    We’re talking about $250,000. To a company the size of Dollar Tree, I can’t imagine that being an enormous amount of money. Whether or not they can legally skirt the responsibility of paying up says volumes about the company to me. If we were talking about 30 million dollars, I could see them having a gripe. 250k is chump change to them but could make all the difference in the world for the woman’s son.

  47. savdavid says:

    I find this another example of corporate greed and their lack of any concern for the consumer and ESPECIALLY their lack of empathy for their slaves, I mean, “employees”. As long as people allow this, they will continue to treat us all like cattle.

  48. Upsilon says:

    Sounds like someone needs to pull a Ra’s Al Ghul up in that headquarters.