This is one of the things wrong with America

[Lewkowski]

http://screen.yahoo.com/popular/woma...161118274.html

Two issues here both the same cause - the litigiousness of our society.

1. She is not being fired just for violating company policy. The concern is that if they don't fire her the next time one of their employees does something like this and actually does get hurt they can get sued because they set a precedent of allowing the behavior. This is such a risk adverse pansy move but its one that big companies do ALL the time. Her actions were heroic and led to the arrest of a piece of filth. She should be respected and awarded for what she did not punished. But due to fear of potential future law suits they fired the 18 year employee.

2. She's hired a lawyer? WTF. As much as I feel its a scumbag move to fire her, a private company has the right to fire anyone! Its their company not the workers! The very idea that you can sue to get a job back is ludicrous.

Lawsuits are what is wrong with America. Tort reform is needed - its one of the drivers of the high cost of health care, its one of the drivers of ridiculous warning labels comedians make fun and it allows for the proliferation of a parasite class(lawyers).

Other then the fact the criminal is behind bars this story is down right depressing.

[GGT]

The guy who works for the Insurance Industry is outraged that Liability Insurance can dictate corporate policy? Taking a quote from one of Lewk's idols --- Give Me A Break!

[Lewkowski]

The guy who works for the Insurance Industry is outraged that Liability Insurance can dictate corporate policy? Taking a quote from one of Lewk's idols --- Give Me A Break!

Why is liability insurance so important? This is an easy answer... and goes back to my opening post.

[GGT]

Why is liability insurance so important? This is an easy answer... and goes back to my opening post.

It's not as easy as you like to think. Owning a property, operating a business, or hiring employees doesn't come with carte blanche privileges or protections against any/all liabilities. Many of those liabilities (risks) have been identified, and driven, by the insurance industry, trying to make work environments safer...and reducing claims.

Liability Insurance might have been rendered unimportant or superfluous, if every business based their work environment and SOP based on the safety of their employees and/or patrons.

[GGT]

Lewk, answer this: why would an 18 year employee decide there's any "best interest" served by chasing a petty thief into the parking lot? Surely she knows there are CCTV security cameras that can identify the thief, his car, maybe facial recognition software....and police/detectives to track down criminals. Surely she knows that a multi-million dollar corporation like Lowe's can recoup their merchandise theft losses, and doesn't expect their employees to risk their life chasing robbers.

That's probably employment policy 101 -- don't try to act like a cop from your register.

[Hazir]

I think the policy is also put in place because some thieves react with force, sometimes deadly, when being confronted. What if this shoplifter would have pulled a knife? Then she'd really have something to cry about.

[Aimless]

I bet they were just looking for a reason to get rid of her.

[RandBlade]

Having been in a management position of companies which have had robberies (including Armed Roberies) in the past the golden rule for all staff for policies is that safety is first and foremost. It is wrong to put yourself or others in danger. The second suggestion is if it safe to do so is to try and get any information that can help the Police afterwards (eg descriptions, licence plates etc) ... but that it is the job of the Police to solve crimes and not our team, that our safety comes first and don't put yourself or your colleagues in danger.

Therefore from what I've read on the blurb of that video (can't watch it currently) if I was dealing with the aftermath I would pull the woman to one side and have a word with her along the lines of: What she did was officially wrong and put herself and potentially her colleagues in danger, that she shouldn't have done that. But having said that well done for getting the licence plate. But please don't do that again.

That is just my common sense and comes not from a position of worrying about lawsuits but from a position of not wanting my colleagues lives put in greater danger. I probably wouldn't officially award her (due to her putting herself and others in danger) but I definitely would not fire her.

Under UK law I'd also be concerned that she would have good grounds to claim unfair dismissal. What she did would violate any companies policies, but violating policies on this side of the Atlantic is not grounds for dismissal unless it is considered Gross Misconduct and it would be hard to pin this as Gross Misconduct. It would IMHO be regular misconduct and be grounds for a disciplinary (and thus dismissal only if she was already on a final written warning for other issues as warnings are cumulative and don't need to be on the same issue).

Under US law I'd consider my would-be reaction sufficient to cover the company in legal eventualities (your point 1). The company doesn't need to fire the woman to say that such behaviour violates policy and there is no reason why any condemnation of her behaviour can't be treated with compassion given the circumstances. I wouldn't even give a disciplinary over it, just saying this shouldn't happen should be enough. Even a memo going around along the lines of "given recent incidents we'd like to remind you that ..." should cover that. Just because the company reacted this way doesn't mean they needed to react that way.

EDIT: PS our first robbery was a memorable one not long after we opened. A woman tried to steal something and one of our colleagues wanted to chase after her but was told not to. The Police arrested her later ... she had multiple used dirty needles on her and she was HIV+ ... had she been tackled by the guy who wanted to go after her, he could have ended up getting injected with HIV. These issues are best left to the Police.

[Hazir]

Common sense like that very often doesn't work for big companies; they want people to play by the rules. I think this dismissal wouldn't stand in a dutch court unless some very strict parameters would have been met. If the company would have a stringent enforcement of these rules and if for example their staff would have been sent to trainings in order to learn how to cope with this kind of situation there would be grounds for dismissal.

[RandBlade]

Under strict rules this woman shouldn't have been dismissed. I fail to see how this falls under Gross Misconduct and most companies with strict rules would have a disciplinary procedure and the first step of a disciplinary procedure under most companies I know of is to issue a warning not to repeat the offence. Only under the most egregious of breaches is instant dismissal the outcome and big companies will often have a non-exhaustive example list of such (eg stealing, fighting, drink/drugs on duty etc) and although it wouldn't be exhaustive I can't believe this would fall under anyone's expectations for Gross Misconduct.

As for trainings, for a large company I'd expect this would indeed have been covered in training as part of the induction.

[Ominous Gamer]

The concern is that if they don't fire her the next time one of their employees does something like this and actually does get hurt they can get sued because they set a precedent of allowing the behavior

This is false.

a private company has the right to fire anyone!

thankfully so is this.


lewk, you're a dumbass.

[LittleFuzzy]

2. She's hired a lawyer? WTF. As much as I feel its a scumbag move to fire her, a private company has the right to fire anyone! Its their company not the workers! The very idea that you can sue to get a job back is ludicrous.

You really think it's legally ok to fire someone for anytime, any reason, regardless of contract provisions, and there shouldn't be any recourse in litigation or any other legal avenue? Lewk, just what do you think the purpose of the civil system is, just an avenue created for your company to try and wriggle out of paying claims?

[Veldan Rath]

Did the company violate any contract provisions in this case?

[LittleFuzzy]

Did the company violate any contract provisions in this case?

If they lose the case then yes. Contract law is not a vacuum, it exists in a very active context and operates under a detailed framework of law.

[Hazir]

Did the company violate any contract provisions in this case?

That's for the judge to decide. The contracting parties are non agreeing on the answer to that question. We only know what we have seen in the news, which is a bit thin to base an opinion on.

[Veldan Rath]

I know we are not looking at a contracted employee per se. But if the company policy is not to chase thieves, and you break it, out you go. There is nothing nefarious here.

[Hazir]

I know we are not looking at a contracted employee per se. But if the company policy is not to chase thieves, and you break it, out you go. There is nothing nefarious here.

If only things were so black and white. Most companies have very strict rules against stealing, but what if a waitress eats a cookie that was left untouched by a guest?

We probably could fill this forum with examples of people breaking some rule or another and it still not being very reasonable if they get sacked for it. Ever considered that a big company may have company policies that are so badly publicised that their employees don't even know about them? It's not like company policies are falling under the rule that you're supposed to know the law.

[Veldan Rath]

Reasonable? Perhaps not, and depending upon the State this happened, she might have a case. But companies like Lowes tend to have their bases covered and their employee handbooks tend to be vast and in depth.

Would I fire an employee for this? No, but if she had gotten hurt I bet you there is a lawyer who would advise her she could sue. Nuisance lawsuits exist. And Lewk is right, big companies have to do legal gymnastics like this to protect themselves.

I'd bet an internet cookie that if she got injured in what she did and sued there would be forum members here hoping she won big.

[Ominous Gamer]

their employee handbooks tend to be vast and in depth.

and the employees given no clock time to actually read through it.

[Dreadnaught]

EDIT: PS our first robbery was a memorable one not long after we opened. A woman tried to steal something and one of our colleagues wanted to chase after her but was told not to. The Police arrested her later ... she had multiple used dirty needles on her and she was HIV+ ... had she been tackled by the guy who wanted to go after her, he could have ended up getting injected with HIV. These issues are best left to the Police.

Wow, now that's a cautionary tale.

[Veldan Rath]

and the employees given no clock time to actually read through it.

Very possible. But an employee of 18 years didn't know the don't chase thieves policy? She seems to admit that the store gets ripped off as a common occurance. I'm thinking this woman is an honest one, and if asked will say she knew it was against company policy.

[Lewkowski]

You really think it's legally ok to fire someone for anytime, any reason, regardless of contract provisions, and there shouldn't be any recourse in litigation or any other legal avenue? Lewk, just what do you think the purpose of the civil system is, just an avenue created for your company to try and wriggle out of paying claims?

I doubt this employee was under a contract.

I live in an at will work state, the fairest of all work places. I'm not allowed to force you to work and you're not allowed to force me to keep you working. As long as she wasn't fired for specific discriminatory reasons (race, sex, religion ect) then this should be an open and shut case of the employer getting to make the decision they wish to. They OWN the business. A business is not a public good. A business can be an unfair asshole and that's OK because the owner of a business should be able to do what they want with their PRIVATE property.

[Lewkowski]

I think the policy is also put in place because some thieves react with force, sometimes deadly, when being confronted. What if this shoplifter would have pulled a knife? Then she'd really have something to cry about.

Which is why her actions were heroic. When an individual risk their life to stop the low life's of society they should be commended.

[Hazir]

Which is why her actions were heroic. When an individual risk their life to stop the low life's of society they should be commended.

For a company such heroism might come in costlier than the powertool being stolen. That no doubt is why they don't agree with you.

[Aimless]

I'd bet an internet cookie that if she got injured in what she did and sued there would be forum members here hoping she won big.

Really? If she sued the employer for getting hurt while trying to chase down a shoplifter without being encouraged to do so? Name one member who would really want her to win that lawsuit

[Aimless]

Which is why her actions were heroic. When an individual risk their life to stop the low life's of society they should be commended.

There's a fine line between heroism and folly, but risking a life for the retrieval of a powertool or a tube of toothpaste is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I know there may be some people here who think YOUR life is worth something between $0.5 - $600, but do YOU think so too??

[Ominous Gamer]

an employee of 18 years

which makes this reaction by the store even more idiotic. she has a single bad day out of 18 years, a bad day that resulted in zero negative effect, a bunch of positive reactions, and the store instantly moves to the most severe form of reaction. This is like zero tolerance for adults.

[Timbuk2]

There's a fine line between heroism and folly, but risking a life for the retrieval of a powertool or a tube of toothpaste is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I know there may be some people here who think YOUR life is worth something between $0.5 - $600, but do YOU think so too??

We've long established that life doesn't mean much to lewk.

property > life

[RandBlade]

If only things were so black and white. Most companies have very strict rules against stealing, but what if a waitress eats a cookie that was left untouched by a guest?

We probably could fill this forum with examples of people breaking some rule or another and it still not being very reasonable if they get sacked for it. Ever considered that a big company may have company policies that are so badly publicised that their employees don't even know about them? It's not like company policies are falling under the rule that you're supposed to know the law.

Theft is theft and theft is Gross Misconduct even on this side of the Atlantic. That's still black and white, not grey. I've sacked people for the equivalent of that.

Reasonable? Perhaps not, and depending upon the State this happened, she might have a case. But companies like Lowes tend to have their bases covered and their employee handbooks tend to be vast and in depth.

Would I fire an employee for this? No, but if she had gotten hurt I bet you there is a lawyer who would advise her she could sue. Nuisance lawsuits exist. And Lewk is right, big companies have to do legal gymnastics like this to protect themselves.

I'd bet an internet cookie that if she got injured in what she did and sued there would be forum members here hoping she won big.

That's a bit convoluted and I suspect wrong. Yes there is a handbook and the handbook WILL undoubtedly say that she shouldn't chase. Therefore she violated policy yes. However if she'd been injured she'd have no right to sue as they'd have covered themselves with that handbook. There are less severe actions they could take than sacking an employee who reacted badly while under attack to reinforce that policy. There was no NEED to do so precisely because of that handbook.

Very possible. But an employee of 18 years didn't know the don't chase thieves policy? She seems to admit that the store gets ripped off as a common occurance. I'm thinking this woman is an honest one, and if asked will say she knew it was against company policy.

And does every single violation of a policy mean dismissal? People make mistakes, especially while under attack by others. She didn't use any force.

I doubt this employee was under a contract.

After 18 years in a large company? I doubt that.

I live in an at will work state, the fairest of all work places. I'm not allowed to force you to work and you're not allowed to force me to keep you working. As long as she wasn't fired for specific discriminatory reasons (race, sex, religion ect) then this should be an open and shut case of the employer getting to make the decision they wish to. They OWN the business. A business is not a public good. A business can be an unfair asshole and that's OK because the owner of a business should be able to do what they want with their PRIVATE property.

And do you think the owner of the business made the decision to sack her? Or did some middling Manager? She should have a right of appeal within the company.

There's a fine line between heroism and folly, but risking a life for the retrieval of a powertool or a tube of toothpaste is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I know there may be some people here who think YOUR life is worth something between $0.5 - $600, but do YOU think so too??

I personally chased the guy who broke into my house while wearing nothing but my boxer shorts without knowing anything had been stolen. It was instinct and not pre-planned.

[Illusions]

Which is why her actions were heroic. When an individual risk their life to stop the low life's of society they should be commended.

You answer this here yourself:

A business is not a public good.

I've had this explained to me by Loss Prevention as to why we can't take any other measures against shoplifters other than offering them great customer service (which is supposed to make them not want to shoplift). Its not the business' job to punish poor behavior, like shoplifting, damaging store property, or being rude to other customers or guests, if that person is a customer (key point here), its the business' job to make money and to not lose money. Taking down a shoplifter can cost far more money than the value of the items they are stealing, so the business is only looking at it from a costs perspective.

Also to clarify things, most retail employees here in the US have signed a contract at the start of their employment and periodically have to sign that they understand changes in Standard Operating Procedure, Store Policy, etc. One of those SOP's is that we don't get into physical altercations with shoplifters, ever.

Besides that the amount of shoplifting or willful property damage that probably goes on in the average store, by people from all walks of life, would probably melt your eyeballs. It is really staggering the amount of people who think its okay to damage store goods and property if it makes shopping more convenient or easier for them.

There's a fine line between heroism and folly, but risking a life for the retrieval of a powertool or a tube of toothpaste is definitely on the wrong side of that line. I know there may be some people here who think YOUR life is worth something between $0.5 - $600, but do YOU think so too??

Perhaps the issue is that you're thinking of the value of the item and not the cost of allowing the behavior to continue. You're thinking of it as "Should this person stop someone from stealing a $1 item." and not "Should this person stop someone from stealing."