Grocery Store Chain Sued for Negligence After Employee Allegedly Broke into Coworkers’ Homes and Stole Their Underwear

**Former Employees Sue Stew Leonard’s Over Alleged Home Invasions by Coworker**

Two former employees of Stew Leonard’s, a prominent grocery store chain, have initiated a negligence lawsuit against the company, claiming that insufficient workplace security facilitated a serious breach of privacy. The lawsuit alleges that their former colleague invaded their homes and stole personal belongings, including items of intimate apparel.

The suit, filed in August 2019, highlights troubling incidents that the plaintiffs assert were enabled by the company’s failure to provide adequate locker facilities for storing personal items. Notably, it states that the Newington, Connecticut store did not have a “reasonable locker facility,” which contributed to a “disturbing series of violations.”

According to the allegations, one plaintiff accused the employee of entering her workplace and obtaining personal information through a broken file cabinet. This included a photograph of her, a copy of her driver’s licence, and her house key. Following this invasion of privacy, the plaintiff claims the employee entered her home and stole numerous pairs of her underwear, actions that were purportedly recorded on surveillance cameras.

The emotional ramifications of the invasion are described in the complaint, with the plaintiff detailing “serious, painful and permanent” injuries. These include fear, emotional distress, and psychological trauma. The incident also allegedly compelled her to miss work and ultimately led her to abandon a career she had built over thirteen years, resulting in significant financial loss.

Similarly, a second plaintiff described comparable circumstances, claiming her house key was stolen from the same unsecured lockers before the employee entered her residence and removed personal items. She reiterated the claims of emotional and physical distress, as well as financial repercussions stemming from being forced to leave her job due to the traumatic experience.

Both plaintiffs have accused Stew Leonard’s of negligence and carelessness, alleging that the company failed to uphold a safe working environment. They argue that the grocery chain neglected to provide adequate warning about the risks associated with unsecured locker facilities and did not properly vet the employee who allegedly committed the acts.

The plaintiffs further contend that the company acted recklessly by reportedly ignoring the potential dangers of employing the individual in question, who they claim had a criminal record consistent with his behaviour. According to court documents, the lawsuit alleges that Stew Leonard’s did not conduct thorough background checks for employees, failing to uncover prior convictions that included burglary and possession of prohibited materials.

In addition to Stew Leonard’s, the lawsuit also targets G2G3 Newington LLC and an identified individual responsible for maintaining workplace safety. The plaintiffs are seeking substantial monetary compensation, with damages reportedly exceeding £12,000 (approximately $15,000), excluding interest and costs.

Stew Leonard’s has firmly denied the allegations presented in the lawsuit. In a recent memorandum, the grocery chain asserted that the former employee had indeed disclosed his prior convictions during the hiring process, which included charges of burglary from eight years earlier. The company maintains that it conducted appropriate background checks and insists that adequate lockers with locks were provided to employees, contradicting the plaintiffs’ claims regarding safety.

The defendants have argued that the actions of the former employee were unforeseeable, thereby denying any proximate cause to the alleged damages. They also suggest that the plaintiffs’ claims of injury should be viewed with skepticism due to what they described as “minimal and remote treatment.”

Despite the serious nature of the allegations, Stew Leonard’s has refrained from comments regarding ongoing litigation. As the trial date approaches, set for 28 April, the company remains committed to contesting the claims in court.

This case has not only raised concerns about the adequacy of workplace security but also highlighted the implications of hiring individuals with undisclosed criminal backgrounds. The outcome of the trial could set a precedent for how employers handle employee safety and privacy moving forward, further igniting discussions on the responsibilities of companies to protect their staff and the public at large.