long story needing advice

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Grindbassist

New Member
the other day while at work i was robbed at gunpoint.
had a gun stuck to my face and then chest being told to empty the register and dont do anything stupid...that i wasnt moving fast enough...that i have till 3 or "i am going to f'ing kill you"...
i had to customers in the store and was worried for my life as well as theirs...
called the police after the incident and gave them all the info i could.

at my job (overnight shift at a big corporate drug store/pharmacy) there is no panic button, or security. store is not in the best of areas either.
i had no way to get in contact with my manager, or district. and had to stay in the store for an additional 2 hours to wait for somebody to come in while feeling shaken.

the next day went to the doctors due to not being to sleep rest nor think straight. the doctor and mental health worker both agreed that im suffering from acute stress disorder and should not return back to my job for a week minimum and prescribed me ativan for my nerves. brought the note to work following the visit to the doctor.

the next day i get a phone call saying lost prevention wants to ask me questions bout the robbery. i went in under the impression i was going in to help, but when the LP officer and his partner got me in the office they started to accuse me out right.

asked me to be honest with them and i told them from time to time i took a drink and a snack with the intention to pay in the morning but couldve forgot.

he then continued to ask me questions but not show any evidence. at one point i felt like i was going to pass out from lack of sleep due to the robbery, stress disorder due to the robbery, and the ativan. told them this and he then asked me "and whys that?" implying i had something to hide. asked if i was addicted to anything. this went on for 2 hours, at this point i couldnt grasp what was going on, what was being said. he told me to sign a few papers stating i took a few drinks here and there saying it'll show i was being honest. then had me sign a few more papers that i dont recall cause i wasnt in the right frame of mind due to trauma, stress, medication.

now my job is endanger.

do i have a case for...
1) being put into a dangerous situation
-no security
-no alarm or panic button
-no way to get in contact with management

2) mental stress
-from robbery
-being accused and brought in under one thing but then attacked mentaly by LP
-having LP take advantage of my present state


any info/help will be highly appreciated

ps: i've been with the company 5years, never had a problem. LP said they been watching me since july2007, yet there has been numerous hires since 2007 and just as quickly they have been fired, but nothing bout me
 
Last edited:
Case for what? You admitted to theft? You can be fired or even prosecuted if they so choose. You can visit the sit ein my signature line ask yuor question in the "internaltheft" area experts can answer your questions. However based on what I know they have case not you!
 
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 confronted with an armed robber.
 
I told them from time to time I took a drink and a snack with the intention to pay in the morning but could've forgot.
Click to expand...

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 directive, I would not be so hasty as to call it a retail theft.

Also the the L.P goons took some real liberty's here, the questioning should have revolved around the employees part in the armed robbery (if any) not her snack habits, which is an obvious ruse to rattle the employee.
 
Last edited:
Thats a real stretch. You can certainly talk to a Lawyer but you did admit to theft! The ruse the LP used might be underhanded but it wasn't illegal
 
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 not, so she gives the best answer she can under the circumstances.

It does not matter if the L.P dept. is acting legally, only that they are questioning her with the intent of firing her for handing over the doe to the armed gunman, and using an arbitrary cause to terminate her employment. Now if that is the case that would clearly violate a well understood public policy of a retail cashier not putting her life in jeopardy by not handing over the money to the gunman.

If she is fired and the employment attorney can make a prima facia case it goes to pre trial litigation at that stage hopefully cooler heads will prevail and she will be reinstated (with or without back pay). If not then it gets heard by 12 jurors versus six pallbearers which is what she would be looking at if she resisted the gunman. This whole thing has to do with the robbery at gun point, they had five years to terminate for drinking a coke she may or may not have paid for. To use that lame excuse to fire her at this point would be an obvious pretext sending a chilling effect through the ranks upsetting a well established public policy.
 
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 factors to signing the statement stress, medication,etc,etc. Which could bounce the whole thing on an evidence ruling. A patient put out of work for a week by a doctor it is standard clause not to sign any legal documents on medications. She should have not been there until she returned to work in the first place.

I really don't see how the interview of the armed robbery victim could take two hours from even real police, and I am wondering how many questions were posed in rearguards to the actual event. This whole thing is a sham if they fire her unless she was in cahoots with the armed gunman.

Grindbassist are you in a union?
 
Last edited:
I have a different perspective than either of you, and surprisingly enough my position is closer to that of GH. I think the poster has a legitimate reason to contact the EEOC and possibly the US DOL; I notice that until the poster provided a note from the doctor taking him off work the employer had done nothing. I can't tell from the information provided if FMLA applies but it's certainly work looking into, and PTSD can be a legitimate disability for which a week's leave could certainly be considered reasonable. I'm not going to get into the theft/no theft issue but I have to agree that the termination is questionable at best under the circumstances.
 
I am not disagreeng the timing is odd. However if there was a theft and the poster admitted in writing to theft the poster could have problems.
 
If they had legitimate reason to be concerned about theft, why did they wait till after he had a medical excuse to ask about it?
 
Yes the timing is odd. Perhaps, we dont know, there was an ongoing investigation and the time off rushed things? We just don't know. Problem, as I see it, is the written confession. This "might" be due to the event and time off but if there was a theft it should be ignored? I guess we need to know when the theft(s) happened?
 
From the sounds of things I think it's questionable if there even was a theft. It sounds more to me as if the poster, already in an intimidated state because of the robbery, eventually under prolonged questioning was in a state where he would admit to and sign anything just to make the whole thing stop.

I know this is your field and I respect that, but in this specific instance I think the employer is in the wrong. And you know it's unusual for me to disagree with you. :)
 
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 the suspect of the armed robbery, and has every thing to do with a witch hunt against the employee.

Where were these L.P characters during the hold up? If anyone is guilty of slacking and firing has to go down, hey make an example of them not some cashier. She don't get paid to prevent loss the L.P officers do.
 
Many of the bigger Drug store chains do not employ in store LP. They rotate. This can explain why they wer enot present during robbery. It could also explain why it took a while to discuss employee theft although we still do not know the timing of the thefts. Lastly I see what both of you are saying but your looking at things as a whole! They are seperate events that you two are assuming are connected. We don't know that they are. I agree the timing makes me wonder. I am not willing to make assumptions at this point. Therefore I addressed only the theft. It was not unlawful to terminate for theft. The theft is done deal since the poster admits (in writing) to the theft(s) We need to know:

The timing of the thefts
Where Lp was in their investigation, if there was one

If we know more I might very well agree that it appears as retalition. At this point they are seperate issues in my view
 
I acknowledge that you know far more about LP than I do.

However, if there had been an investigation going on prior to the robbery, the company made a very big mistake in not holding off taking action until after the employee had had the leave recommended by the doctor, returned to work and had a chance to settle back in. Even if they are two separate issues, and I am not saying they can't be, perception is everything in employment law and by their actions they have caused the perception that the two are connected. It wouldn't be the first time that a case that might have otherwise been winnable, was lost on the perception of impropriety.
 
Which is why the timing of the investigation is important. Remember if I am correct and this is a rotating LP team they might be a bit overwhelmed and time short. It "could" be just some really bad timing on their part. I agree it was big mistake but I am not willing to tie the two events together until we can learn when the investigation started. Again poor decision but perhaps with the poster taking time off they felt it was time to act now. LP's are really pushed to get internals some even have quotas to fill! Yes it looks bad for the store but looks isnt the case. Its not likely the poster can tell us when investigation of theft(s) started. That is key to me on whether this was retaliation or not
 
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 and Pinkerton's to avoid a legitimate W.C claim that raises another theory for an attorney to work with.

Avoiding a W.C claim violates Public policy in all 50 states, and most states have that codified in their state Workman's comp laws.
 
Good point, GH. I saw the disability issue but completely missed the W.C. factor. :eek:

Jacksgal, my whole point is that looks CAN be the case. One of the things that HR Managers have hammered into us is the importance of perception. We spend our professional lives walking the line between legitimate claims and the perception of impropriety.

You may be 100% right but that doesn't mean the poster can't have a winnable case because of the perception of discrimination and a few other things. IMO, unless the employer has VERY good proof of intentional theft on the part of the poster, they may have shot themselves in the foot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top