Don't feel ripped off when you get ripped off – get even

September 6th, 2018 by Ed Harold at Fisher Phillips


Both of the following blogs were written by Ed Harold at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. Both are included in their entirety below. You can find the originals, Part One and Part Two, and their Retail Industry Update on their website.

 

A Step-By-Step Guide To Terminating Employees For Theft (Part One)

There’s good news for retailers: you are getting better at preventing shrink from employees. In 2005, a University of Florida study found that employee theft accounted for 47 percent of shrink. In a follow-up study in 2016, the university found that the percentage of shrink caused by employee theft was “only” 30 percent. The bad news: this is still a fairly significant number, accounting for approximately $15 billion in losses on an annual basis.

Retailers use a variety of tactics to battle this epidemic, from low-tech options such as offering rewards to employees who turn in thieves, to high-tech systems that can, for instance, monitor transactions to reveal issues that managers would normally be unable to detect. Yet unscrupulous employees remain undeterred, and will forever try to beat the system.

Even more upsetting is that catching an employee red-handed on video sliding product will not necessarily prevent them from bringing a wrongful termination claim against you. Many individuals, even guilty ones, feel compelled to try to clear their name through litigation. Although you would likely win such a suit in the end, the expense and time involved can be hundreds of times the amount of the theft, and might sway you to instead negotiate a frustratingly unfair settlement. 

In order to maintain consistency, there is usually no choice but to terminate employees who engage in dishonest or even suspicious behavior. But if you or your managers were to make innocent mistakes during what should be a legitimate termination, you could find yourself facing a lawsuit. Worse, you could learn that your mistakes gave the lawsuit legs because it opened you up to exposure to an individual who stole from your company.   

In this issue, we’ll look at some common mistakes that have resulted in otherwise unassailable terminations going south in court, and step-by-step solutions to prevent the worst-case scenario from unfolding. 

The Investigation

In virtually every employment lawsuit arising from a termination for wrongdoing, the first step of the termination process—the investigation—becomes the most critical when scrutinized in front of a jury. It’s even more important when theft is involved. An allegation of theft is a powerful accusation and one that should never be taken lightly. While ordinarily you bear no burden of proof at trial, the jury will often look to you to prove theft beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, the employee’s first tack in a trial will be to attack the quality of your investigation. 

The Appropriate People Should Conduct The Investigation

There are many important missteps to avoid. First, at least two individuals should be involved in your investigation and, optimally, one should not be personally acquainted with the subject. This will help avoid claims that the allegation was trumped-up against an employee by a hostile or biased investigator. For example, an employee might claim that they were framed for theft by a manager for refusing earlier sexual advances. Using several investigators might shield such an accusation from gaining traction. 

Make Sure The Accused Tells Their Tale

You must allow any employee being investigated to tell their story and include the account in your record of the investigation. Otherwise, a jury may think the employee was railroaded. The investigation must be thorough, and your investigator should never limit questioning to the witnesses identified by the accused when there may be other individuals with relevant knowledge. 

Follow Your Own Internal Policies

If your company has a protocol for investigations, it must be followed to the letter. Juries demand that employers follow written procedures. Failure to do so can serve as evidence of “pretext” (a justification for a course of action that is found to be false) and could defeat your efforts at winning the case on written motions, rather than going all the way to trial.

Make Sure Your Witnesses Provide Their Own Testimony

It is important for witnesses to write their statements in their own handwriting and using their own words. Nothing tanks the credibility of a witness faster than when they don’t understand the meaning of words used in “their” written statement when testifying on the stand.

Preserve Records And Recordings

Another concern arises when a company acts as if it will never hear from the employee again once they depart the workplace following a termination. Even if you obtain a written confession of theft, it will be no substitute for a complete investigative file. Your investigator must organize and store all the records of the investigation for future use. Nothing should be destroyed.

If you plan to use business records or recordings that are ordinarily destroyed in accordance with your company’s record retention and destruction protocol, they should be moved from their usual location and preserved. Just as video footage of an employee pocketing a twenty is solid gold in a court, not having that video footage is solid gold for the plaintiff in an employment trial. If the video is missing, no explanation will overcome a jury’s assumption that you did not want them to see the video for some nefarious reason. Likewise, if an investigator reviews evidence, such as financial reports, stored on a computer, they should create copies of these records to be included in the investigation file.

Catching The Thief

The method used to catch thieves is another aspect that can result in liability. For example:

  • It is common for retail managers to hide baby monitors or other electronic listening devices in break rooms to try to catch employees talking about stealing. While the idea seems perfectly logical, it could also be illegal under federal anti-wiretapping laws and state privacy statutes.
  • During an investigatory meeting with an employee who is suspected of theft, if you have the employee in a position where they cannot leave the room or area without “going through” one of your managers, it could lead to a false imprisonment claim.
  • Digging through an employee’s purse or other personal belongings looking for stolen merchandise without consent to search could generate an invasion of privacy claim.
  • Using a lie detector during an investigation of monetary loss could open you up to legal claims given strict federal regulations on the subject.

Because of factors like these, it’s important that you take several steps while attempting to catch an employee on suspicion they are stealing.

Destroy The Expectation Of Privacy

First, every employee should sign an acknowledgment that they understand they have no privacy rights in regard to those items they choose to bring on the premises. While not required by federal law, you should also have your employees acknowledge and consent in writing that they are under video surveillance while in all public and employee-only spaces at your store (not bathrooms or other private spaces). This will prevent them from bringing a successful invasion of privacy claim in the future.

Set Expectations For Investigations

At the outset of any investigation into alleged theft, the accused employee should be made aware that participating in company investigations is mandatory. Provide them a written notice that refusal to cooperate may result in termination.

Create And Enforce Policies Related To Company Assets

Finally, you should expressly advise all of your employees regarding your policies pertaining to the protection of company assets. Instruct them that violations of the policy may lead to their immediate termination without any finding of intentional wrongdoing. 

The Termination Meeting

The termination meeting should not be the first time the accused is informed that they are suspected of malfeasance. However, even if you have done some legwork into the matter and feel like you have a rock solid case before talking with the suspected thief, you should still consider your plan for carrying out the disciplinary action.

Consider A “Suspension Pending Investigation”

Regardless of any benefit to keeping the employee in the dark about your suspicion while you conduct a covert investigation, and even if termination is essentially a foregone conclusion at the time of your interview with the accused, you should still hold off on making a termination decision and from communicating that sort of message during that first interview. It is far better to suspend the employee pending the outcome of the investigation. Many times the employee will not return for a follow-up meeting and can be terminated as having abandoned their job. There are far fewer facts to argue when an employee is terminated on these grounds.

Your Words Matter

How the termination meeting is to be conducted depends heavily on the strength of your evidence. If all the signs point to theft but you don’t necessarily have anything that is conclusive, you should not use terms like “theft,” “dishonesty,” or even “suspicion of theft” as reasons the employee is being terminated. This does not mean you cannot terminate the employee, but accusing an individual of a crime is per se defamatory in many jurisdictions, and you may be required to prove in court that the employee did, in fact, commit a crime. Instead, language centering on your lack of trust in the employee—“we are terminating you because we have lost confidence in your ability to perform your job up to our expectations”—is much less likely to be considered defamatory. 

Focus On Your Policies, Not The Criminal Code

Another way to couch your justification for termination if you are less than 100 percent certain of the employee’s guilt is to cite a violation of your company policies and not any allegation of criminalwrongdoing. In this scenario, you should tell the employee that you have not reached a conclusion as to their culpability for a crime, but that the termination is because proper store procedures were not followed. 

Stay Tuned For Part Two

Terminating employees for the reasons stated in this article may not prevent the employee from securing unemployment compensation, but as we’ll discuss in Part Two of this article, fighting unemployment compensation is overrated. In the next issue of the Retail Update, we’ll look at other problem areas in terminating for theft, including when—and when not—to call the police.

 

A Step-By-Step Guide To Terminating Employees For Theft (Part Two)

In our last issue, we looked at some ideas about how to investigate, catch, and terminate employees who are stealing from your company. In this conclusion, we’ll talk about some ways to avoid—or at least reduce the possibility of—getting sued by those same thieves.

Admissions Of Guilt

This seems like a simple piece of advice, but it’s crucial: if an employee admits to the theft, ask for a written confession. As with any other witness statement relating to an investigation, this should be in the employee’s own handwriting. Managers should also be taught that the Law and Order hot-boxing method of extracting written confessions could easily backfire. If the circumstances under which the employee gives the confession can be characterized as coerced, a jury may choose to ignore it. To this end, allow an employee to leave the interview and go to another area where the investigators are not hovering around as the document is prepared. 

If the employee refuses to admit theft even where there is indisputable evidence of guilt, you must choose carefully how to characterize the termination. Employees who refuse to admit guilt in the face of overwhelming evidence will most likely continue to fight the assertion of theft at every opportunity. These are the individuals most likely to sue. 

Once you submit “theft” as the reason for termination to an unemployment compensation board, the battle will be on. It may well be a battle worth fighting, but that decision must be made in light of all the potential claims an employee may have against you, not just the unemployment compensation claims. These include discrimination allegations, wrongful termination claims, and defamation suits.

Police Involvement

For years, many managers and owners have subscribed to the theory that having the police arrest a suspect at the store and parading them out in handcuffs in front of all the other employees was a good method of deterring theft. While this might be true, it is certainly one of the best methods of instigating a lawsuit. 

Before calling the police, it is critical to know how seriously they will respond to allegations of theft of a few hundred dollars in merchandise. Some police departments are simply too overwhelmed to do more than write a report of the complaint. Either a lack of interest or sloppy handling of the matter by the police can both be used to undercut your claims against the employee. Ultimately, no police involvement is better than limited or poorly handled police involvement. 

If a police department is ready, willing, and able to respond to reports of theft, call them when the missing item or money is discovered. In such a situation, it is critical that whoever interfaces with the police does not point the finger at the suspected employee. If a different employee turns out to be involved, your initial finger-pointing might spur a claim for malicious prosecution under state law. Should the suspect beat the charges, which sometimes occurs, the employee will be more likely to succeed on a claim for malicious prosecution against you. 

If the police move forward with charges against the employee, you must be willing to provide all the assistance they require. Witnesses failing to appear for trial will result in charges being dropped and will cast doubt on your good faith. 

The Unemployment Compensation Hearing

Treating the almost inevitable unemployment compensation claim lightly can wreak havoc on later proceedings related to the termination. If the employee already has counsel, that attorney will likely attend the hearing and question witnesses. Testimony is under oath and, in some cases, can be used against you in later proceedings. For these reasons, it is important to prepare for an unemployment hearing as if it were a formal court proceeding.

Another problem can arise if key witnesses are no longer employed by the time of the hearing. While they can be subpoenaed, many employers fail to take this step, hoping that the written statements taken during the investigation will carry the day. The problem is that, while the statements are often admissible, the court or administrative body might not be able to credit hearsay statements over the first-hand accounts of the employee. 

The employee often becomes emboldened to assert other claims when they prevail in an unemployment compensation claim. Additionally, an employer that loses at the unemployment hearing might also lose the qualified privilege defense to a defamation claim for statements accusing the employee of malfeasance. If you do not want to spend the time, energy, and effort needed to fully prepare for the unemployment compensation claim, it may well be better not contesting the claim at all. 

Conclusion

While retailers can take strong efforts to reduce employee theft, eliminating it entirely is likely an impossibility. But employers have the ability to greatly diminish the opportunity for the insult of an expensive lawsuit being added to the injury of theft. 

For more information, contact the author at EHarold@fisherphillips.com or 504.522.3303.



Related posts

Discipline - Demote - Depart or Communicate - Counsel - Channel

SHRM, with help from author Ogletree Deakins, explains the process of demoting an employee, including: reasons for demotion opportunities/fresh start pay reduction not necessary risk of retaliation demote or terminate communication is the key   ..read more

I cannot tell a lie . . . you're fired for cutting down the cherry tree

This blog was written by Robin Shea at Constangy, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Georgia Employers. You can find the original on their Employment & Labor Insider blog (which is one of our favorites and is excellent).   Second-guessing the advice columns: Don't lie about ... ..read more

No, you can't sleep on the job

This blog was written by Shelby Skeabeck, formerly of Shawe Rosenthal, author of our Maryland Human Resources Manual. You can find the original blog post here and their Labor & Employment Report newsletter (which is excellent) here.   No, You Can’t Sleep on the Job, Especially when it’s... ..read more

"We need to talk" isn't any easier to say than to hear

This blog was written by Mathew Parker at Fisher Phillips, which authors several of our resources. You can find the original here and their On the Front Lines Workplace Law Newsletter (which is excellent) here.   We Need to Talk: 5 Tips For Conducting Difficult Workplace Conversations ... ..read more

Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies

This blog was written by Robin Shea at Constangy, which authors our Model Policies and Forms for Georgia Employers. You can find the original here and their Employment & Labor Insider blog (which is one of our favorites and is excellent) here.   Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" polic... ..read more

Termination Series: Communicating the reason for discharge

Do employers need to provide a reason to a discharged employee? Federal law does not require employers to provide terminated employees with a written explanation for their discharge. However, many states have litigation in place that calls for an employer to provide documentation outlining the... ..read more

Firing, a job to do right the first time

"You’re fired." On The Apprentice, Donald Trump made it look so easy! For the rest of us, a poorly done termination could be costly. Emotions run high, there is a lot of paperwork involved, and an employer can end up with a big mess on their hands. Taking the time to do a termination properly can... ..read more


HR Webinars

HR Articles
List 10 Up: Top tips for starting a workplace incident interview
Mr. Freeze unveils National Security Freeze tagline: "They can't steal your identity if it's frozen"
If it's called a dress code, can I wear pants?
I've changed my name – to Optimus Prime
TN: Conceal and carry means post to prohibit or permit
I'll take "ADA in 5s?" please Alex
Swearing at work – 7 rules
Is that red light flashing?
Four-legged office mates and the pawternity policies they benefit
Notice: notices and forms for FMLA that were already expired now updated virtually unchanged
Don't feel ripped off when you get ripped off – get even
School-related parental leave does not mean you forge a note from your kid
NY: Draft model sexual harassment policy/training released
Discipline - Demote - Depart or Communicate - Counsel - Channel
ICE audits II – FAQs to make you wiser
Round up stew: sick leave, harassment, non-compete, etc.
Identifying trade secrets does not mean figuring out how to barter better
ICE audits have nothing to do with freezer police
Being at work full time is not an essential function of a job?
List 10 up: Positive employee relations training: reap the benefits of engagement
Employment agreements – what to do before you do
Background checks of the future are continuous
Treating service animal requests (always treat the animal)
Prepare for saying "No" – you need to decide how to refuse service
List 10 up: What's the deal with employee handbook rules?
I cannot tell a lie . . . you're fired for cutting down the cherry tree
Milk Stork delivers for working mom's and their baby
Job tasks and essential functions under the ADA
Who are you? Why are you here? Personality testing?
No, you can't sleep on the job
Technology driving the hiring process
Should you give your employees a little Slack – or do they have enough already?
"We need to talk" isn't any easier to say than to hear
Bet employers must make: call and raise your minimum wage
Zero tolerance for "zero tolerance" policies
Ralph Waldo Emerson as a productivity consultant
PS: PTSD IRL*
Is the employee "disabled" under the ADA?
The six step DOL audit polka
PTO on the house!
New rules for work rules
Dr. Strangelabor or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Millennial
Did Bartleby the scrivener write his own job description?
"Treating" disgruntled or bad behaving employees
Hiring under the age of 18
DO NOT LICK THE BRAIN! and other obvious stuff
Helping your employees save for emergencies
Right to bare arms in the workplace
#MeToo quiz
Under standing desks
How to approach an employee showing signs of cognitive decline
Dress codes should not be encoded
Foul language *
Rorschach, Horshack and Abednego
Don't ask a woman the gender of her child, especially. . .
Guidelines for a valid no-solicitation/no-distribution policy
All aboard the Love Train for long-term onboarding!
Gender and workplace bathrooms
No FMLA for pet's death
Personal hygiene in the workplace
Yes Virginia, there is a St. Patrick's Day in Ireland
Master the modern method for managing March Madness
Drug testing in The Office
Background checks
"Thank you" and "I'm sorry" – meaningful, simple and impactful
Michael Corleone HR tip for the day
S'not flu or it is, doesn't matter
Be prepared for ICE raids
Looking for employees: an untapped source of talent
Calling Dr. Love(less)
Non-exempt employees – what counts as wages?
HR is not a happy accident
Do new hires have to be a culture club fit?
Remote workers and telecommuting
When former employees ask for references
Model written lock out/tag out program
Wrong table cat
They might be giants . . . transforming healthcare?
Conducting internal I-9 audits
The Nebraska Chamber has issued a W-2 challenge to state taxpayers
The impact of super bowl(ing)
12 steps to handling violence in the workplace
Workplace retaliation: don't give in to the Dark Side
Would you really want to work with a bunch of yous?
What is the ADA?
Monty Python should not write your job descriptions
FMLA definitions
Unemployed or wear a bra – are those the only choices?
What "government shutdown" means for employers
An intern by any other name
FMLA - "leave" as in "leave the employee alone"
 “M,” “F,” Or “X”? Nonbinary Gender Designations in the Workplace
Sexual harassment – can't find it – what now?
Probationary periods
Employee contracts
Introverts
How to treat fringe benefits for employees
Attendance policies
Different repeal
Temporary and leased employees
Birthdays in the workplace
Needy employees
Holiday parties - acknowledge, avoid, assume (nothing)
Dress codes: who, what, wear
Punch clock
Nepotism: favoring relatives and friends in the workplace
Year-end performance reviews
Hiring interviews
The Form I-9 has changed… Again!
Service dogs at work
Bring your own gun
Social media
Year-end or holiday incentives
Arizona sick day policy
Paternity leave
HRsimple spotlight - Fiona Ong
Permissible post-accident drug testing
Paid family leave: a growing trend
Politics in the workplace: how to remain legally compliant during election season
Termination Series: Communicating the reason for discharge
It’s only a matter of overtime
Interview with attorneys at Kastner Westman & Wilkins
Valentine's Day heartaches around the office
Safety and health tips
Wearable technology
Favorite HR sites
Back to school time is here!
Vacation policies and time off
Interview with author J. Hagood Tighe
Non-compete agreements
Workplace romance
Holidays
Bullying in the workplace
Employment references
Telecommuting or remote (control) workers
Social media and employment
Performance evaluations
Breaktimes
Interview with attorneys at Wilson Worley PC
Interview with attorneys at Knudsen Law Firm
Interview with Kathy Speaker MacNett
Firing, a job to do right the first time
Job advertisement do’s and don’ts
Employee handbooks – getting a handle on your policies
Technology in the workplace
Interview questions: do's and don'ts
Employee personnel files