Fired clerk sues Circle K over its shoplifting policy

[Auburn85 438]

 

[AUDub 12,013]

She'll lose. These policies exist for a damned good reason.

I worked retail and it was impressed upon us to never ever confront or try to apprehend suspected shoplifters.

What if this guy assaulted her? That cost of that pack of cigarettes pales in comparison to her medical bills for broken bones or a stab wound.

[CoffeeTiger 5,957]

she wasn't acting in "self defense" here. She clearly stepped up to the man, grabbed him and tried to shove him away to stop him from grabbing the cigarettes. She says she doesn't remember doing that, but luckily she doesn't have to remember what happened because its all on video. 

I think it's clear she violated the policy, and she was being stubborn about trying to force a robber out of the store, now whether CK should have fired her for it from an employee or PR standpoint, maybe/maybe not.

I worked in retail years ago and several managers were fired at the same time because they tackled a thief to the floor as he was trying to run out the door. 

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

She'll lose. These policies exist for a damned good reason.

I worked retail and it was impressed upon us to never ever confront or try to apprehend suspected shoplifters.

What if this guy assaulted her? That cost of that pack of cigarettes pales in comparison to her medical bills for broken bones or a stab wound.

I agree with your assessment of her actions, but I'm not so sure that "she'll lose". She seems to be basing her lawsuit on a claim that she wasn't violating the policy because she was acting in self defense from an aggressor and not going after him (again, that's what she seems to be claiming but not necessarily what I think the video shows). I could see a settlement to give her compensation to make it go away as I'm sure circle K doesn't want this going before a jury with a sympathetic old lady as the plaintiff. 

Do you think a judge/court would dismiss it outright? 

[Gowebb11 10,035]

If employees confronting shoplifters is not the answer, business owners need to find the answer. People are fed up with working hard for money and paying for goods and services while others take what they want for free, completely unopposed. I suggest an armed guard with an eager Belgian Malinois posted at the front door. If the thief can outrun the dog on his way out, he gets to keep the goods. If not, he won’t steal again soon. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Gowebb11

[AUDub 12,013]

3 hours ago, Gowebb11 said:

If employees confronting shoplifters is not the answer, business owners need to find the answer. People are fed up with working hard for money and paying for goods and services while others take what they want for free, completely unopposed. I suggest an armed guard with an eager Belgian Malinois posted at the front door. If the thief can outrun the dog on his way out, he gets to keep the goods. If not, he won’t steal again soon. 

They know the answer; A certain amount of shrink is "the cost of doing business."

As much as you wanna show some crackhead who's got nuts, it is ******* stupid to put yours or the lives of others on the line for a bit of cheap, likely insured merchandise or the money in the register. The company has way bigger problems than a pack of cigarettes or other merchandise walking out the door if one of their clerks or customers gets hurt or killed.

That's not even getting into potential legal liability from bad apprehensions or damage and injury stemming from an apprehension gone wrong.

tl;dr unless you are paid to confront and apprehend thieves or robbers, stay in your lane. Your life and health isn't worth a pack of smokes. 

[Gowebb11 10,035]

7 hours ago, AUDub said:

l;dr unless you are paid to confront and apprehend thieves or robbers, stay in your lane. Your life and health isn't worth a pack of smokes

I plainly stipulated it may not be the job of employees to intervene. Armed guards and dogs are my suggestion. You can’t have a society of order if you allow crimes know with no consequences. Anarchy is the result. That’s what got us here. And the shrinkage is now so huge in dollars it is impacting earnings significantly. As a result, me and my family pay more of our hard earned dollars. Crackheads aren’t just walking out with cigarettes. Gangs are looting stores for thousands of dollars of iPhones and power tools in broad daylight.  That can’t stand unopposed. 

[Mikey 16,781]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:46 AM, Gowebb11 said:

Armed guards and dogs are my suggestion.

Great idea. I'd add arming store clerks if the dogs and guards don't work for a particular business. A couple hundred of these thieves getting gunned down would put the brakes on this nonsense. Something has to be done, and a violent response may be the best practical answer.

To answer in advance, yes shoot someone who is stealing a pack of smokes. It's not about a single item being stolen, it's about what's going on across the country. This crap has to stop.

[AUDub 12,013]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:46 AM, Gowebb11 said:

I plainly stipulated it may not be the job of employees to intervene. Armed guards and dogs are my suggestion. You can’t have a society of order if you allow crimes know with no consequences. Anarchy is the result. That’s what got us here. And the shrinkage is now so huge in dollars it is impacting earnings significantly. As a result, me and my family pay more of our hard earned dollars. Crackheads aren’t just walking out with cigarettes. Gangs are looting stores for thousands of dollars of iPhones and power tools in broad daylight.  That can’t stand unopposed. 

Armed guards and dogs don't come cheap, and there are a lot of Circle Ks. 

They've done the math. The shrink is cheaper than potential liabilities or paying for security at every location. 

[SaltyTiger 8,664]

Looked to me as though she was just acting instinctively when the guy entered her work space. Can understand the policy. There is nothing in a convenience store worth starting a knife fight or shootout over although theft at any level disgust us.

Convenience stores that I frequent seem to always be inundated with local police taking a break. Store managers claim the free coffee and fountain drinks probably cost more than the petty theft they deter.

[Gowebb11 10,035]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Great idea. I'd add arming store clerks if the dogs and guards don't work for a particular business. A couple hundred of these thieves getting gunned down would put the brakes on this nonsense. Something has to be done, and a violent response may be the best practical answer.

To answer in advance, yes shoot someone who is stealing a pack of smokes. It's not about a single item being stolen, it's about what's going on across the country. This crap has to stop.

Yes. What is happening now is the same gangs are robbing the same stores on a recurring bases. Lululemon in Atlanta for instance. I wonder if the executives not addressing it mind if I stroll into their home and take a TV. It’s wrong for the policy to be “do nothing”. Criminals best friend. 

[Gowebb11 10,035]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

Armed guards and dogs don't come cheap, and there are a lot of Circle Ks. 

They've done the math. The shrink is cheaper than potential liabilities or paying for security at every location. 

I understand the economics of scale part of it. But for the policy to be no opposition is making things worse, not better. We’re either a nation of laws or we’re not. Organized gangs are now targeting big box retailers on a recurring basis to the tune of millions and even billions of dollars. They learned their trade in convenience stores and drug stores. It has to be stopped.

[The Freak 2,559]

38 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

Yes. What is happening now is the same gangs are robbing the same stores on a recurring bases. Lululemon in Atlanta for instance. I wonder if the executives not addressing it mind if I stroll into their home and take a TV. It’s wrong for the policy to be “do nothing”. Criminals best friend. 

Lululemon being robbed is quite ironic.

[AUDub 12,013]

1 hour ago, Gowebb11 said:

I understand the economics of scale part of it. But for the policy to be no opposition is making things worse, not better. We’re either a nation of laws or we’re not. Organized gangs are now targeting big box retailers on a recurring basis to the tune of millions and even billions of dollars. They learned their trade in convenience stores and drug stores. It has to be stopped.

The big box stores DGAF. They can easily absorb shrink losses and have factored them in for decades now. These policies and the rackets you bring up are not new at all. I worked retail for 6 years and that was 20 years ago. The policies were the same then that they are now.

Where it's really problematic is the small businesses.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

3 hours ago, Mikey said:

yes shoot someone who is stealing a pack of smokes

How utterly inhumane and,,, completely stupid.

[aubiefifty 18,444]

On 6/22/2023 at 5:46 AM, Gowebb11 said:

I plainly stipulated it may not be the job of employees to intervene. Armed guards and dogs are my suggestion. You can’t have a society of order if you allow crimes know with no consequences. Anarchy is the result. That’s what got us here. And the shrinkage is now so huge in dollars it is impacting earnings significantly. As a result, me and my family pay more of our hard earned dollars. Crackheads aren’t just walking out with cigarettes. Gangs are looting stores for thousands of dollars of iPhones and power tools in broad daylight.  That can’t stand unopposed. 

i have no proof but how times have changed. used to if you did not confront a shoplifter you would get fired.

[AUDub 12,013]

4 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

i have no proof but how times have changed. used to if you did not confront a shoplifter you would get fired.

One or two lawsuits or comp claims is all it takes for them to not encourage it anymore.

Nor should they. If I ran a business I'm not telling a 78 year old woman making peanuts for pay it's her job to protect my bottom line at the risk of her safety. 

Edited June 23, 2023 by AUDub

[AU9377 6,109]

38 minutes ago, AUDub said:

One or two lawsuits or comp claims is all it takes for them to not encourage it anymore.

Nor should they. If I ran a business I'm not telling a 78 year old woman making peanuts for pay it's her job to protect my bottom line at the risk of her safety. 

True, but you prob aren't firing her for doing what she did in this instance as well.  Companies should use better judgment based on the particular situation.  It isn't as though she took a piece from her purse and started randomly firing at the thief. 

[AUDub 12,013]

14 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

True, but you prob aren't firing her for doing what she did in this instance as well.  Companies should use better judgment based on the particular situation.  It isn't as though she took a piece from her purse and started randomly firing at the thief. 

She risked her life and disobeyed a policy that’s there to protect her and others in the store. It’s absolutely worthy of termination.

[Gowebb11 10,035]

17 minutes ago, AUDub said:

She risked her life and disobeyed a policy that’s there to protect her and others in the store. It’s absolutely worthy of termination.

I hope she wins and walks away with a fortune. Circle K is a rich corporation. They can write off the settlement as a different type of ‘shrinkage.’  

[AUDub 12,013]

6 minutes ago, Gowebb11 said:

I hope she wins and walks away with a fortune. Circle K is a rich corporation. They can write off the settlement as a different type of ‘shrinkage.’  

She won't win.

They *may* settle due to PR, but on the merits she has no legal leg to stand in. She violated their policy. End of story. 

[AU9377 6,109]

27 minutes ago, AUDub said:

She risked her life and disobeyed a policy that’s there to protect her and others in the store. It’s absolutely worthy of termination.

I understand the policy, but I am not about to fire an employee that has worked for me for 18 years simply because she pushed back instinctively when a little punk came around to her side of the counter.  No policy should be so rigid as to not allow for the circumstances of the situation to be taken into account.  

I agree that she won't win in court.  People can be fired for most anything in the majority of states and for no reason at all in many.  I just see this set of circumstances as being a bad business decision.

Edited June 23, 2023 by AU9377

[AUDub 12,013]

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I understand the policy, but I am not about to fire an employee that has worked for me for 18 years simply because she pushed back instinctively when a little punk came around to her side of the counter.  No policy should be so rigid as to not allow for the circumstances of the situation to be taken into account.  

Rigidity isn't the issue. The policy is clear and as much as people want to introduce dither to it she obviously violated it.

She actively tried to stop him. That is a no no. 

17 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

I agree that she won't win in court.  People can be fired for most anything in the majority of states and for no reason at all in many.  I just see this set of circumstances as being a bad business decision.

If he'd put that knife to use the narrative would be very different. 

[Gowebb11 10,035]

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

She won't win.

They *may* settle due to PR, but on the merits she has no legal leg to stand in. She violated their policy. End of story. 

They will settle. She was an 18 year employee and is 78 so she will almost certainly make more in a settlement than working there another year or two. I wish her and them well. I appreciate your perspective as well. 

[AU9377 6,109]

2 hours ago, AUDub said:

Rigidity isn't the issue. The policy is clear and as much as people want to introduce dither to it she obviously violated it.

She actively tried to stop him. That is a no no. 

If he'd put that knife to use the narrative would be very different. 

All the same, I believe that there are many retail outlets that, with the same policy, would have handled the matter differently and not dismissed the employee.  There are other methods to get the point across and not throw away a trained employee of 18 years.  Had she done some act, like locking the door to prevent him from leaving or left her station to chase him down in the store, I might feel differently.  As it is, I don't.  I was corporate counsel for Blimpie International Franchising for several years.  I understand why it is important to just give an armed thief whatever they want and live to fight another day.

In this case, she didn't use force.  The contact was casual, to the point that the punk was smiling and not concerned. 

[SaltyTiger 8,664]

5 hours ago, AUDub said:

Rigidity isn't the issue. The policy is clear and as much as people want to introduce dither to it she obviously violated it.

She actively tried to stop him. That is a no no. 

Well she acted instinctively. Did not have time to pull the policy manual out Ben.