Threatening letter from Palmer, Reifler & Associates

[psw2308]

What is the name of your state? California

My husband just received a letter from Palmer, Reifler and Associates, which appears to be a firm that specializes in loss recoveries for businesses.

In 2003 my husband was laid off after nearly 25 years with Hughes Aircraft. After looking for a year, he finally took a job with Home Depot repairing their rental tools. For 2 years he worked weird shifts, worked virtually every weekend and every holiday. He didn't call in sick, he didn't use his vacation, he worked as hard at this job as he did at Hughes. All his performance reviews, etc. were excellent.

In March, 2006 he was called in by the new Loss Prevention person to be asked about an incident occurring 6 weeks previously. They were short-staffed that Sunday and had no one to work the rental counter, so my husband was pressed into service to handle the rental contracts and the dispatch and return of the rental tools. The LP person asked about an electric snake (for plumbing stoppages....a large item the size of a lawn mower on a cart) that had come up missing. He had been the person that signed this item in and out. He was told they had video that didn't show the item on the counter at return. They refused to show him the video. He pointed out that it was too large to be placed on the counter. They said that he should have walked around the counter to check the serial number. That would have been the correct procedure. They couldn't reach the person who rented the tool. They thought it was suspicious that it was only out for 2 hours (how long would YOU keep something used in a sewer?). He asked her point blank if she was accusing him of stealing the electric snake. She said no, they weren't saying that, but that he COULD have been responsible for the loss since he didn't follow the correct procedure to make sure it wasn't some other random snake.

He had been a manager for many years and asked about discipline...counseling memo, written warning, suspension, docking of pay.....she said they weren't going to do that and placed him on administrative leave. Five days later the store manager called him in and fired him. He was told that his 2 year spotless record was useless. He was told that no other action would suffice. He again asked if he was being accused of theft, and was told no. He had not followed company procedure.

He started looking for work and filed for unemployment. In his unemployment interview, he told the intake officer that he had been terminated and the circumstances, and she thought that he was still eligible. He started receiving benefits.

Approximately 2-3 months later he was notified to appear at a hearing before a judge. Home Depot was contesting his right to receive Unemployment Benefits. He had all of his performance reviews, bonus announcements and commendations with him. Home Depot brought nothing. The judge again asked if they were accusing him of stealing the tool. They said no. He had been fired because he did not walk around the counter and physically inspect this huge object. The judge asked to see the video. They said it was the property of Home Depot and they didn't have to show it to anyone. The judge wanted to know if every employee ALWAYS observed this protocol. They said maybe not. He also asked how many others had been fired for it, and they couldn't give another example. He asked about their Progressive Discipline policies, and why they had not been followed in this case. They didn't have an answer for that either.

The judge found in my husband's favor. Although his employment was covered by the "at will" policy in California, he could not be dismissed without going through the Progressive Discipline procedure outlined in the Employee Handbook since this was not a case of "Willfull Misconduct" on his part. His finding was that the termination was inappropriate in this case, so he was eligible to receive Unemployment.

Now 15 months later he has received this letter from Palmer, Reifler and Associates representing the Home Depot "in connection with its civil claim for misappropriation of company assets (which I interpret as another way of saying theft)." They state that he acknowledged in the session with the Loss Prevention that he owed the value of the tool to Home Depot and agreed to pay for it (which is not correct), and that he had 30 days to respond.

First of all, he can't respond in 30 days, because he is in Iraq. He felt lucky that as a 58 year old man terminated from his last position that he could get anyone to hire him. The truth really is the best defense. Home Depot did him a favor, because the findings of the judge in the Unemployment hearing helped him secure his security clearances. However, he would not ordinarily have chosen to take a job that requires him to live 100 miles from home during an ordinary week and be away from home for months at a time in harm's way in places like Iraq.

The claim for money is almost secondary in this case. After stating repeatedly that he was NOT being accused of theft, but of failing to follow a department procedure, suddenly they are saying that this claim is based on "misappropriation of company assets". He really can't let that stand. That COULD affect his security clearances, and this assertion is completely out of left field.

I know this is long, but it's a complicated situation. With my husband in Iraq, he has more to worry about than debt collectors. We would be very appreciative of any advice about how to proceed or respond.

Thank you.

[moburkes]

Let them sue your husband.

[debtcollector`]

Talk to an attorney on how to respond to the suit. It should be easy to postpone until he gets back, but the paperwork has to be done right.

DC

[rkindigo]

DO NOT PAY THESE PEOPLE!

Do some research. There is a potential class action law suite against Palmer for extortion like tactics. I won’t post specifics because apparently I am violating some rules on this forum and the info will get deleted. But Google Palmer, Reifler and Associates Class Action Law Suite and you will find the info yourselves.

If you have gotten a threatening letter from this "Law Firm", let me tell you what our lawyer told us about this company before you just agree to pay them. YOU HAVE RIGHTS!!!

My daughter went through something similar to what you are going through if you got one of these letters. She made a mistake, used bad judgment and got caught shoplifting from Home Depot where she was employed.

She cooperated fully with Home Depot. She hired a lawyer, went to court and not only paid the store back for the merchandise, but paid all court costs, lawyer fees and did a summer worth of community service.

Then, months later we get one of these letters from Palmer, Reifler and Associates requesting an additional $1775.

We contacted her lawyer and what he told us was that this company is nothing more than a glorified debt collection agency and in no way had anything to do with the case against her that went to court. He said that them using the term "Law Offices" in their letterhead was quite a stretch. He also told us that for you to have to pay something like this, it has to come from a judgment made in a court of law; not just some random made up amount.

He said this is an intimidation tactic. They hope to scare you into paying the amount in the letter out of fear without question; which must work, because they have built a rather large business doing it. He told us to ignore the letters and not even waste our time contacting them. He also told us that if they put this on her credit report as an uncollected debt, he would go after them.

If they really are going to sue you, let them sue you in a court of law where you can use your constitutional given right to defend yourself. Criminal AND civil judgments both must be decided in a court of law.

[cosine]

Originally Posted by debtcollector`

Talk to an attorney on how to respond to the suit. It should be easy to postpone until he gets back, but the paperwork has to be done right.

DC

Have you jumped the gun and assumed a letter is a lawsuit? Or do you have a reason to believe Palmer, Reifler and Associates is certain to sue?

[Indiana Filer]

Originally Posted by rkindigo

necropost

Please don't violate the rules of this forum by posting to old, dead threads. It's rude.

[Indiana Filer]

Originally Posted by cosine

Have you jumped the gun and assumed a letter is a lawsuit? Or do you have a reason to believe Palmer, Reifler and Associates is certain to sue?

Have you jumped the gun and posted to a dead thread? Why yes, you have.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by psw2308

The judge found in my husband's favor. Although his employment was covered by the "at will" policy in California, he could not be dismissed without going through the Progressive Discipline procedure outlined in the Employee Handbook since this was not a case of "Willfull Misconduct" on his part. His finding was that the termination was inappropriate in this case, so he was eligible to receive Unemployment.

I know this is an old thread, but since it has risen from the grave in mummy-like fashion, I wanted to clarify something.

The UI office did NOT find that the termination was "inappropriate" or illegal. Rather, they found that the reason for termination did not rise to the level of "willful misconduct". As such, he was able to receive the benefits. No law was broken by him being fired.

[Antigone*of*Greece]

Originally Posted by Indiana Filer

Please don't violate the rules of this forum by posting to old, dead threads. It's rude.

This guy does it over and over. If you're not nice, then he'll just tell you where to go.

See he is on this quest to vindicate his five-finger-discount-loving daughter. He seems to think the world is being to harsh on her.

...another victim of circumstance. I think this OP, his daughter and emach1 should start their own club.

[Indiana Filer]

Originally Posted by Wirelessany1

...another victim of circumstance. I think this OP, his daughter and emach1 should start their own club.

And the idiot who expected his co-worker to pay for the idiot's wife's vacation is also eligible for membership since he's also a criminal.