Employee fired after she's robbed at gunpoint, and refused to recoup losses.

[hoosierdoc]

Oooooooooooooof course she is.

Never hurts to ask, I guess.

When the tide of public opinion is at your back, might as well take a stab at a friendly jury.

 

[edporch]

Pregnant Popeye's worker fired after armed robbery

... That's a weird one. How does the employer justify asking the employee to repay the losses of the burglary?

IF she was fired because "...she broke policy multiple times by leaving too much money in the register..." then this could be justified.
ESPECIALLY after the business was robbed, which showed WHY the policy she had repeatedly ignored was important.

But there's NO evidence she was ever warned that if they were robbed and she had ignored the "too much money in the cash register", she would have to pay the money back.

So demanding she pay the money back is not justified.

As far as hiring her back, it's up to the owner as it's his business.

Lastly, her being pregnant has no bearing on this case.
This fact was just used by the press for demagoguery purposes.

 

[Alamo]

...

But there's NO evidence she was ever warned that if they were robbed and she had ignored the "too much money in the cash register", she would have to pay the money back.

So demanding she pay the money back is not justified.

It is not a matter of "justified" or warnings.

1. From reading the original story, the corporate policy was too-much-money-in-till+previous-warnings-or-other-previous-disciplinary-problems means loss of job, period.

2. It also appears that the local franchise owner was actually giving her a break, contrary to corporate policy, by allowing her to keep her job despite firing offense(s) if she replaced money that was stolen -- money that would not have disappeared if she had followed the rules.

If both 1. and 2. are true, then in fact she was offered a fair deal.

Instead it seems she and her lawyer gloss over that part and are using it to socially pressure Popeye's. And it worked -- Popeye caved.

I'll bet that franchise owner never cuts anyone else a break for anything from now on...

 

[HoughMade]

How is it illegal to fire someone for violating policy, then offering them their job back if they repay what was lost?

 

[chipbennett]

So, she wasn't fired for being robbed at gunpoint and refusing to pay for the loss, but she was fired for repeatedly leaving too much money in the till?

The total in the till was $400, and had accumulated in an hour (according to her lawyer), on the busiest night of the week (2 piece chicken for $1.19, or somesuch).

Exactly how often is she expected to empty the till?

Fired Popeyes manager demanding $5.5 million in lieu of lawsuit - Houston Chronicle

 

[HoughMade]

"according to her lawyer"

Excuse me while I go grab several thousand grains of salt.

...how often? As often as it takes to keep the total under the proscribed amount.

 

[chipbennett]

How is it illegal to fire someone for violating policy, then offering them their job back if they repay what was lost?

Has anyone actually found/quoted the policy in question that she allegedly violated?

 

[chipbennett]

"according to her lawyer"

Excuse me while I go grab several thousand grains of salt.

...how often? As often as it takes to keep the total under the proscribed amount.

And what, exactly, is that amount?

 

[KLB]

And what, exactly, is that amount?

What difference does it make?

 

[VGFsirius]

Yup. Often screws the case, too. Former employee usually isn't real cooperative any longer.

Had a sandwich shop fire the pregnant victim a month or so ago. That's why I thought it was going to be that one at first.

Your life sounds so much more exciting than mine.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Your life sounds so much more exciting than mine.

You can simulate 85% of what I do by using a coffee machine, copier, laptop, and telephone in random order. The other 15% is pretty cool, though.

 

[HoughMade]

Has anyone actually found/quoted the policy in question that she allegedly violated?

Who knows? Do we have a reason to believe the company less than the former employee looking to become a millionaire?

Does it have to be in writing?

Don't know about Houston, but here they could fire her for any reason they want other than a federally protected class, (or retaliation) and while pregnancy is one of those, so far, there's not even a hint that she was fired because she was pregnant. In fact, her own story of being able to "buy" her job back indicates that the pregnancy has nothing to do with it.

I don't even know what the basis of the lawsuit would be.

"You fired me and Facebook thinks that was wrong", SO FAR, is not a recognized cause of action.

 

[chipbennett]

What difference does it make?

Really?

The claim is that she was justifiably fired for violating company policy by allowing the amount of money in the till to accrue above some defined amount. Wouldn't that policy-defined amount be relevant?

 

[chipbennett]

Who knows? Do we have a reason to believe the company less than the former employee looking to become a millionaire?

Does it have to be in writing?

Don't know about Houston, but here they could fire her for any reason they want other than a federally protected class, (or retaliation) and while pregnancy is one of those, so far, there's not even a hint that she was fired because she was pregnant. In fact, her own story of being able to "buy" her job back indicates that the pregnancy has nothing to do with it.

I don't even know what the basis of the lawsuit would be.

"You fired me and Facebook thinks that was wrong", SO FAR, is not a recognized cause of action.

Yeah, I'm good with at-will employment.

I'm NOT good with a company demanding that an employee pay back, out of the employee's own pocket, company losses from an armed robbery. I'm especially not good with the company then claiming the employee's refusal as grounds for firing. I'm talking in terms of right and wrong, not legal basis for a lawsuit.

I've never in my life eaten at Popeye's Chicken, so I'm sure they won't miss my patronage.

 

[RegularGuy24]

wow...im sure she will get her job back...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, I'm good with at-will employment.

I'm NOT good with a company demanding that an employee pay back, out of the employee's own pocket, company losses from an armed robbery. I'm especially not good with the company then claiming the employee's refusal as grounds for firing. I'm talking in terms of right and wrong, not legal basis for a lawsuit.

I've never in my life eaten at Popeye's Chicken, so I'm sure they won't miss my patronage.

Private business. It seems completely reasonable, to me, that if an employee's reckless actions causes a business to lose money, that the business be able to require that employees pay back said losses or lose their job.

 

[Alamo]

Yeah, I'm good with at-will employment.

I'm NOT good with a company demanding that an employee pay back, out of the employee's own pocket, company losses from an armed robbery. I'm especially not good with the company then claiming the employee's refusal as grounds for firing. I'm talking in terms of right and wrong, not legal basis for a lawsuit.

I've never in my life eaten at Popeye's Chicken, so I'm sure they won't miss my patronage.

With the caveat that we only have "facts" as reported by the newspapers...

This selectively states the facts that can be gleaned from the newspaper article. Basically you are just stating her position and ignoring other elements.

The company/store owner states she kept money in the till above the amounts allowed by company policy. And that she had prior disciplinary issues. She does not deny this, and in fact seems to bring up that she was previously warned about the till requirement more than once. Apparently this is a firing offense, and that is what the company says she was fired for. Period dot. In the world of right and wrong, she did wrong and got caught when the robbers ran off with all the money -- exactly the reason the policy was instituted. I'm not surprised she got canned.

The local owner offered her an out, tho (and possibly not within corporate guidelines). If she made good on the loss that she caused by her own failure to adhere to policy, she could keep her job. In the world of right and wrong, that was a very generous offer. She either chose not to accept it or didn't have the cash handy to make it good, so bye bye. Instead she's seems to be trying to bring public opinion to bear by selectively stating the facts, a strategy that seems to working famously well.

I don't know if employment law would allow it, but if I were an employer, one of my requirements for employment would be as signed statement that if an employee (and/or her lawyer) took an employment dispute to the public via any means, I would be authorized to release the employees work files to the public also.

 

[Alamo]

I'm also curious to see if the robbers get caught that it turns out they found out knew she regularly left too much in the till, and that pattern factored into the initiation and timing of the robbery.

 

[Fargo]

The local owner offered her an out, tho (and possibly not within corporate guidelines). If she made good on the loss that she caused by her own failure to adhere to policy, she could keep her job. In the world of right and wrong, that was a very generous offer. She either chose not to accept it or didn't have the cash handy to make it good, so bye bye. Instead she's seems to be trying to bring public opinion to bear by selectively stating the facts, a strategy that seems to working famously well.

The "out" is of very questionable legality. For one, it quite possibly violates the hell out of the minimum wage laws. It also may run afoul of state/local laws on paycheck withholding etc.

Firing her appears perfectly legal; trying to get money back out of her possibly is not.

 

[chipbennett]

Private business. It seems completely reasonable, to me, that if an employee's reckless actions causes a business to lose money, that the business be able to require that employees pay back said losses or lose their job.

Given the facts at hand, that's a rather loose use of "reckless."

If the employer is that worried about armed robbery, perhaps a better policy would be to require managers to be armed.