employer’s passive acquiescence in her leaving the premises and driving away in her own vehicle, acts they had no legal right to prevent, is simply not enough to impose a duty on this employer who was totally blameless in the condition — [the employee’s] intoxicated state — that led. to the accident and the plaintiffs injuries. Id. at 105. See also Riddle v. Arizona Oncology Servs. Inc., 186 Ariz. 464, 924 P.2d 468 (App.1996) (finding no duty where supervisor ordered the employee to leave the defendant’s premises prior to the end of her shift; employer did not order or require the employee to drive; and the employee’s intoxication was not caused, contributed to, or condoned by the employer); Howard v. Delco Div. of General Motors Corp. Inc., 41 Ohio App.3d 145, 534 N.E.2d 936 (1987) (<HOLDING>). As the Tennessee Court of Appeals found in
holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made holding that employee who resigned left voluntarily where employer accepted resignation told employee not to come to work anymore and paid employee through end of notice period holding that employer did not have duty to protect allegedly intoxicated employee from risk that employee would have automobile accident after leaving work holding that employee may claim contract created based on employer promise of severance pay to employee holding that an employer did not regard the employee as disabled because it called the employee back from disability leave to work on a special project