Search results

Carl stop busting my balls here with: the sigh, the Nazi CEO, and the conspiracy nonsense. If you want to believe that companies never take adverse action against an employee, who has a potential claim against them feel free. I am not going to waste a bunch of ink laying down hundreds of cases...

No! We can not agree on such a thing, the supposed tapes of the employee stealing were never played to the employee. Some lying goon just said there were tapes, “now can you recall any thing you may have taken without paying, we have tapes”? That was the question posed by the Pinkerton, to the...

Criminal what is this none sense? The criminal was the guy that showed up packing heat, telling the victim to empty the till. You think the employer is going to file criminal charges against the victim? There is no maybe about it-the tapes are discoverable. I think a reasonable jury watching...

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...

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...

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.

The poster has not been fired at all she is worried about being fired Jacks.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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...

Oh one other thing regarding the disability since I did gloss over it. The poster was hospitalized and diagnosed with some type of mental stress trauma over the incident (cant tell if its temporary or permanent). If the employer is cutting bait on the employee through the use of company goons...

An EEO case is always a tough nut to crack, Prima facia case is always easy but after that things get deposition heavy and tend to fall apart. I'm not saying it is a bad theory only a tougher one. The L.P questioning and the way its is being framed seem to be little interest in apprehending...

Which has bupkas to do with the armed robbery. It does not say took a few drinks with out paying. I don't see how you could work five years any where, and not drink of something. If she was intimidated or coerced in to signing, that thing could get tossed. There were also contributing...

Admit theft where?-Not according to the post. I don't see any admission of a theft, she sitting there being sweated by a couple of company brown shirts, she is trying to be as honest as possible and can not recall every soda she ever had in the store over a five year period was paid for or...

With all due respect that is hardly an admission of theft. Could've forgot also implies could've paid. It is not unheard of for retail employees to take drinks,and snacks from the racks, with out knowing the employers policy for discount, or employee limits of drinks, or the mangers unwritten...

No your aunt has to disclose it to the insurance company, the insurance company is going to find out any way if she discloses or not. Now as far as repayment in either your's or your aunts case you have to repay them but you don't have to hand them over all the money at once. You can set up a...

If the company fires you contact an employment attorney, a firing that arbitrary after an armed robbery could be viewed as pretext for the real reason of handing over cash to the assailant. That would be a firing in violation of public policy,as well the companies own policy of, what to do when...

I don't know why they said that. Run it by an attorney in your state.