 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worpenberg v. Kroger Co.3/8/2002
think? I take money? You think I would take money?" To a third co-worker, Brent Cox, who tried to calm her down, she testified that she said, "What would you do in this situation, Brent? You would do the same thing. This is terrible. They accused me of theft."
Worpenberg testified that she then collected her purse and left the store. The next day she had a meeting in the office of Glenn DuBrucq, the zone manager responsible for the Mason store. Oeters was also at the meeting. Worpenberg complained to DuBrucq that no one would tell her how the till had balanced. DuBrucq instructed Oeters to tell her.
Oeters said that the till showed an overage of $105. Worpenberg testified that she then explained to DuBrucq that the misrings had not caused any shortage. She stated that DuBrucq expressed surprise and then anger at Oeters, saying, "What the hell is this, Judy?" The meeting concluded with DuBrucq promising to investigate the matter further and to call Worpenberg.
Less than a week later, Worpenberg was called back to speak with DuBrucq. According to Worpenberg, DuBrucq told her at their meeting, "Pam, I investigated you. The company has investigated you. You did nothing wrong." DuBrucq also advised her, however, that she was wrong to have cursed at Oeters and Greenert, and that certain people wanted to see her demoted to assistant front-end manager because of her behavior during that interview. Worpenberg was unapologetic and refused to accept a demotion. She asked for a letter of recommendation. DuBrucq replied that he would " bsolutely" give her one.
As soon as Worpenberg got home from the meeting, she received a telephone call from John Schroeder of Human Resources. She testified that Schroeder told her, "Pam, Mr. DuBrucq is devastated. He won't take away your title. He won't take away your money. And in three months you can get in the [management training] program, at Christmas time, when it comes through. It's a promise of his." Worpenberg responded that she would consider the offer.
In the days that followed, Worpenberg spoke to a friend of hers, a worker at Kroger's Tylersville store, who advised her strongly that she should come back to work to publicly demonstrate her innocence. Worpenberg then called DuBrucq and told him that she would return. She testified that DuBrucq told her, "I don't think you will ever realize how happy this makes me." Worpenberg stated, however, that she told DuBrucq that she only wanted to work at the Tylersville store. DuBrucq responded that she was badly needed at the Forest Park store.
Worpenberg testified that she felt that she was being reassigned to "a punishment store" and balked. Worpenberg ultimately decided not to take the position. When asked why, she testified,
I felt, when I thought about it in depth, that going back I would not move ahead in my career as I had. I felt this was a black mark on me. I knew how they talked about theft in the store and how people were made fun of. And I knew that it was already all over all the stores and I didn't see any career there anymore.
II.
In her first assignment of error, Worpenberg argues that the record in the trial court created a triable issue of whether Kroger's conduct toward her was sufficiently egregious to establish a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. She identifies two aspects of Kroger's behavior as being actionable: (1) that Oeters and Greenert accused her of theft when, she alleges, both knew that no money was missing; and (2) that the company failed to take appropriate steps to allay and quash rumors among its employees that she had been caught stealing.
In Yeager v.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|