long story needing advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
I see this as being the result of one of two possible scenarios ...

In scenario one, the LP folks see Grindbassist as being an accomplice of the alleged robber and are trying to work that angle. Though, nothing in the post seems to indicate that this was the direction of the interview.

In scenario two - one I have seen before - while reviewing old video to help the police with the robbery they find several instances where Grindbassist snatched things from shelves and did not apparently pay for them. I strongly suspect that what he signed was an admission to committing theft in spite of his claim that he was too stressed to understand them. Maybe he was ... but, in any event, they appear to have these documents in hand.

If fired, he should certainly speak to an attorney, but if the store has tape of him committing theft - or even his admission, regardless of the timing he can still be fired - and even prosecuted - for the prior thefts.

It would not be the first time in history that the investigation of one crime led to another. I have been to alarm calls that resulted in busts of marijuana grows and meth labs, beatings that resulted in the arrest of a rapist, shoplifting capers that have led to unrelated burglary and embezzlement charges by the employee ... in short, I suspect that the information of the employee's theft came up while they were investigating the robbery.

If he did, indeed, commit the thefts, he might be better off simply negotiating his resignation rather than having a termination hanging over him. If terminated for employee theft, or even prosecuted, he might not only find future employment nigh impossible, but he may also find that receiving any benefits or treatment for any disorders as a result of the robbery will be difficult.

However, as the details of these laws do vary by state, he might be best advised to consult an employment attorney now to see whether his termination or quitting would eliminate access to counseling or not. If he is truly suffering as a result of the robbery, he will want to attend therapy.

In my opinion he does not have a good lawsuit against the employer for failing to provide security, etc. unless the laws of his state require alarms and such. Unless employees were getting robbed all the time, it might be hard to show that no alarm or added security would lead to a foreseeable conclusion that an armed robbery would occur. Depending upon the conduct of the interview, he MIGHT have a good defense if prosecuted or fired based upon a browbeaten confession (assuming, of course, that is truly the way it went down). A jury might decide that allegations of stress, etc. might be a way of trying to mitigate his own actions concerning thefts, it is hard to say.

- Carl
 
Last edited:
Also a zero tolerance on employees drinking sodas,or taking sandwiches, or snacks off the shelves is practically unheard of (with in reason of course), and even the ones that have such a policy would have to apply it across the spectrum to sell it to jury for firing an employee under circumstances outlined in this thread. Something like this goes down the at-will presumption go south quick. The employer is going to need a lot more than she may or not had an unpaid soda in five years.
 
Not sure what retail enviroment you worked in but any retailer we are familar with does not permit theft! Internal theft is over 43% of any retailers shrink (loses) of course they would do what they can to reduce this. A zero tolerance policy would do this. If your stealing sodas what else are you willing to steal?
 
I suspect it came across as a pattern of behavior, or why mention it? Depending on how long they save their video, this may be an ongoing series of events. I know a local grocery chain here that saved video of one employee for more than 6 months before reporting the thefts to the police because they were getting more evidence ... and, they believed the SOL was one year (it was actually THREE years, but the LP director did not know that because he was thinking shoplifting, not burglary or grand theft).

- Carl
 
I have to agree with Jacksgal. The retailers I am familiar with allow consumption of shelf products ONLY if paid for. And, fountain sodas and other such drinks can be taken, but some stores require the employee use a special cup and not those from inventory. Cans and bottles, no.

I never worked in a retail environment where there was food or drink, but I have been in enough of them (and worked with enough managers and LP personnel) to know that pilfering from the inventory without compensation (i.e. theft) is generally frowned upon.

- Carl
 
Oh I worked in a lot of retail stores and bakery's when I was a starting out, granted they were Mom and pop outfits not huge corporations with H.R Dept's, Unions,and so fourth. and yes, we took sandwiches home with us in front of the owner. Back in the day when cigarettes were .60 cents a pack same thing.

Retail stores traditionally comp employees like that due to their low wages. Now of course Alcohol and tobacco are regulated more, food on breaks is usually a perk sometimes unwritten. No that is not retail theft. This is not a retail outlet where the employee is walking out with a Guchi hand bag stuffed in her pants. Even retail outlets have employee discounts where returned merchandise is Penny's on the dollar, and in some cases free.
 
Its quite apparent that assume policy does not exist at this store. I again know of no retailer that allows inventory to be take at will by staff. Now fountain drinks or even bulk food items perhaps but not inventory item slike those described in post. Internal theft is any retailers number one source of shrink.
 
Of course if you are police officer and you answer calls you will see that Carl. They are not going to call you in when it is acceptable.
 
But many of these stores do not make their own product and are liable to a third party for product that is no longer on their shelves. A $5.49 sandwich that stays on the shelf and is unsold gets credited back to the store, whereas a missing $5.49 sandwich costs them money. If the store were a bakery or deli - or even a restaurant - it is easier to absorb those costs.

Certainly every retailer is different, but I am thinking this is more of a 7-11 or Circle K type outfit, or some similar chain. Those businesses tend not to allow people to take things without permission. And there is the rub - if you take it WITH permission, it is fine and dandy ... taking it without permission is theft.

- Carl
 
If this store allowed employees to snag product, then this would not be an issue. I think it is clear that they believe he took property without providing compensation. In other words, that he committed theft.

- Carl
 
My husband has a contact with a High level LP for a major drug store chain. He assures my husband that at no time are employees allowed to remove sodas or any merchandise from shelf for their own consumption without payment.
 
You guys are talking apples and oranges with this retail theft line. It has little or nothing to do with the posters problem, it is a lame excuse to get rid of an employee with five years good service that was held up at gun point. You cant fire some one for that.
 
Well if your husband :sits on the jury, and does not get bounced on voir dire, and hears the whole case rolled out with all the evidence, he may find that is a bogus pretextual argument.
 
The poster has not been fired at all she is worried about being fired Jacks.
 
CdwJava said:
I suspect it came across as a pattern of behavior, or why mention it? Depending on how long they save their video, this may be an ongoing series of events. I know a local grocery chain here that saved video of one employee for more than 6 months before reporting the thefts to the police because they were getting more evidence ... and, they believed the SOL was one year (it was actually THREE years, but the LP director did not know that because he was thinking shoplifting, not burglary or grand theft).

- Carl
Click to expand...

Yea and they will have to turn all the tapes over at the discovery phase, and every employee taking a soda better be down the road, or it wont sell. Evidence is a sword cuts both ways in civil litigation.
 
Your assuming the poster is prosecuted and opts to fight theft charge even with poster written admission. Firing the poster does not mean store will file charges.
 
jacksgal said:
Its quite apparent that assume policy does not exist at this store. I again know of no retailer that allows inventory to be take at will by staff. Now fountain drinks or even bulk food items perhaps but not inventory item slike those described in post. Internal theft is any retailers number one source of shrink.
Click to expand...
If such a policy exists and the only time it is enforced is when an employee is held at gun point then it is a bogus reason to fire the women. Such a firing under those circumstances could give rise litigation. Zero policy or not, it is very difficult to enforce a zero policy across the board if one even exists. You seem sure based on your husband experience that a zero policy exists.

Look I know a lot of people in retail and the service industry it just ain't the case. A policy that broad would have to used on consistent basis and lose due to employee turnover would be higher than any shrinkage. Your forgetting that most retail employees are minimum wage or a bit over, employers typically ignore zero tolerance policy's handed down by corporate to maintain a regular work force.
 
Green Hornet said:
Yea and they will have to turn all the tapes over at the discovery phase, and every employee taking a soda better be down the road, or it wont sell. Evidence is a sword cuts both ways in civil litigation.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not.

Disparate treatment can be one defense in a civil case, I suppose, but it does not mean that he is innocent and he CAN still be criminally prosecuted for the theft. In a criminal case, the state does not care if other employees have been reported or not. The criminal aspect cannot be discounted in any consideration made by the employee and his attorney ... assuming he IS fired, and this has not happened yet.

If he is not terminated, then he pretty much has no case against his employer that I can see. It might take a lot more than a grueling interview for a jury to think that he is being picked on to the point he should be rewarded with great sums of cash. But, I suppose it would depend on whose rendition of the interview the jury might believe.

- Carl
 
jacksgal said:
Your assuming the poster is prosecuted and opts to fight theft charge even with poster written admission. Firing the poster does not mean store will file charges.
Click to expand...
No I am not assuming that at all, if the employee is fired the employee's attorney will launch a complaint against the employer, if the employee establishes a prima facia case for wrongful termination violation of public policy. The employer hardly has enough evidence given the post to launch a criminal complaint.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top