My life is a Judge Judy Episode

[brentyoung]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

On Friday May 3, 2013 I went into a local Wal Mart to purchase a computer & television. I went to the electronics department, found the 32 inch Vizio TV & the HP Computer I wanted. I checked out in electronics, but had to go to Sporting Goods to have a manager remove te spider security tag from both items.

I exited the store, loaded the items in my car and went home.

On May 7, 2013 while at work, my boss asked me to come into his office. Once inside, he informed me that my 17 years at the company had came to an abrupt end; I was terminated. The reason: I WAS ACCUSED OF SHOPLIFTING from the Wal Mart. My boss refused to listen that I had purchased the items, he was hellbent that I stole the merchandise. He would not listen to me, and/or let me bring in the receipt. He had security escort me off the premises.

The Wal Mart in question has a local police department office attached to the building, and the police frequently use their Facebook Page to have the community identify Persons Of Interest (POI). People that they feel shoplifted from the local Walmart, or other crimes.

A fellow Co-Worker of mine had seen my picture on the website & notified HR, my boss and the upper management of the company I worked for. Therefore leading me to be terminated.

I printed the webpage and went back to Wal Mart, called the police. I spoke with another Wal Mart manager, the police and showed them the receipt. Both the manager and the police officer apologized for the misunderstanding, and the police did state that anytime a major electronic purchase (tv, computer, stereo, etc) is sold, the cashier is supposed to notify Loss Prevention. According to the manager at Wal Mart, my purchase was not and that is why I became a POI.

My question is, can I sue Wal Mart for me getting terminated for their irresponsible actions?

What are my legal grounds?

 

[cbg]

Wal-Mart didn't get you terminated. A series of unfortunate events, none of which violated any laws, resulted in your termination.

 

[brentyoung]

Wal-Mart didn't get you terminated. A series of unfortunate events, none of which violated any laws, resulted in your termination.

Thank You. I agree, but to a point I have to disagree. If walmart would have reviewed the security footage, they would have seen I purchased the items. I understand that they have thousands of customers daily, but they should not accused someone of a crime that person did not commit. That shows lack of character on their part, which lead to me losing not only my job, but could have lead me getting arrested for their wrongdoing.

 

[TigerD]

I printed the webpage and went back to Wal Mart, called the police. I spoke with another Wal Mart manager, the police and showed them the receipt. Both the manager and the police officer apologized for the misunderstanding, and the police did state that anytime a major electronic purchase (tv, computer, stereo, etc) is sold, the cashier is supposed to notify Loss Prevention. According to the manager at Wal Mart, my purchase was not and that is why I became a POI.

My question is, can I sue Wal Mart for me getting terminated for their irresponsible actions?

What are my legal grounds?

Was the police officer on-duty, or off-duty working as a loss prevention agent at Wal-Mart?

I think you ought to talk to a local attorney with experience in defamation and labor laws.

DC

 

[Sloop John D]

There may have been an act of defamation, but if I'm reading your post correctly, it wasn't committed by Walmart.

Considering that the whole misunderstanding has now been resolved and confirmed to be a mistake, have you tried talking to your employer about it? Perhaps you would get an apology and your old job back.

 

[cbg]

Wal-Mart does not have a duty to you, with regards to your employment. It's not as if they called your employer and told them you had stolen from them. They followed their standard procedures, which resulted in an otherwise harmless error. Someone else saw the notation and contacted your employer. Your employer exercised his right under the at-will doctrine that is practiced by 49 out of 50 states (and sometimes in the 50th) and terminated your employment.

By all means discuss it with a local attorney, but I doubt you will find any legal grounds to sue Wal-Mart. And take my word for it, I detest Wal-Mart and would be more than delighted to tell you if I thought there was a chance otherwise.

 

[swalsh411]

I highly doubt the facebook page flat out said "This person stole a TV. Help us find them". It probably just asked for anybody with information on the person in the photo to contact the police.

File for unemployment immediately if you have not already done so.

I would be interested in seeing this facebook page if you want to post a link to it.

 

[brentyoung]

I highly doubt the facebook page flat out said "This person stole a TV. Help us find them". It probably just asked for anybody with information on the person in the photo to contact the police.

File for unemployment immediately if you have not already done so.

I would be interested in seeing this facebook page if you want to post a link to it.

Villa Rica Police Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Villa-Rica-Police-Department/193924227297551

 

[brentyoung]

Was the police officer on-duty, or off-duty working as a loss prevention agent at Wal-Mart?

I think you ought to talk to a local attorney with experience in defamation and labor laws.

DC

The cop was on duty, as a cop. The villa rica police have an office attached to the walmart. This Walmart, from my understanding, does not have off duty police as LP agents.

 

[brentyoung]

There may have been an act of defamation, but if I'm reading your post correctly, it wasn't committed by Walmart.

Considering that the whole misunderstanding has now been resolved and confirmed to be a mistake, have you tried talking to your employer about it? Perhaps you would get an apology and your old job back.

I have tried to contact my former employer, but to no avail. My boss & upper management are holding to the fact that I was terminated, and there is no possible chance to get re-hired. I worked for the company 17 years, never missed a day, no call outs, none of that matters to them.

 

[cbg]

If I was looking at the right picture, you were identified as a subject they wanted to question, not as a suspect wanted for theft. For all anyone reading that page knows, you were a witness to an accident and they wanted to know if you saw what happened. There is no reference to Wal-Mart and no reference to theft. If your co-worker and your boss jumped to the wrong conclusion, that is the fault of neither Wal-Mart nor the police.

 

[Sloop John D]

I have tried to contact my former employer, but to no avail. My boss & upper management are holding to the fact that I was terminated, and there is no possible chance to get re-hired. I worked for the company 17 years, never missed a day, no call outs, none of that matters to them.

That seems really bizarre to me. A 17 year employee in good standing gets fired over a misunderstanding and they won't take him back?

I don't know about the employment laws in Georgia, but in some states employment of that length of time would result in a contract whereby the employee could only be fired for cause.

I can't tell you for sure, but there is a chance that the nature and length of your employment would have resulted in a contract that would require good cause before you could be terminated, and I would guess a fabricated story about a theft wouldn't count as good cause.

Speak with a few attorneys and see what they say. Usually a consultation is free.

 

[cbg]

I don't know about the employment laws in Georgia, but in some states employment of that length of time would result in a contract whereby the employee could only be fired for cause.

Name one. Employment at will is the rule in 49 out of 50 states, including Georgia. In NO employment at will state does length of employment automatically create a contract. Montana is the sole exception, and while I'd have to check, I strongly suspect that suspicion of theft would be considered cause.

 

[Sloop John D]

I don't know about the employment laws in Georgia, but in some states employment of that length of time would result in a contract whereby the employee could only be fired for cause.

Name one. Employment at will is the rule in 49 out of 50 states, including Georgia. In NO employment at will state does length of employment automatically create a contract. Montana is the sole exception, and while I'd have to check, I strongly suspect that suspicion of theft would be considered cause.

In California, length of employment is considered along with other factors. Whether or not California and Montana are the lone exceptions I couldn't say for sure, but from what I have seen, most At Will states have their exceptions to the general rule.

And while I would normally agree that suspicion of theft would be cause, the OP had the ability to prove that the suspicion was false, and later did establish that the accusation was erroneous, which would seem to negate any cause that existed.

 

[quincy]

If I was looking at the right picture, you were identified as a subject they wanted to question, not as a suspect wanted for theft. For all anyone reading that page knows, you were a witness to an accident and they wanted to know if you saw what happened. There is no reference to Wal-Mart and no reference to theft. If your co-worker and your boss jumped to the wrong conclusion, that is the fault of neither Wal-Mart nor the police.

While I agree with all that has been posted so far, I am thinking that brentyoung should speak with an attorney for a review of the facts, as DC suggested earlier.

Just like mug shots that are published online, photos of the sort posted on the Villa Rica Police Department site tend to imply that the person pictured is guilty of a crime. This implication of guilt with the publication of mug shots (even when arrests are made in error or do not result in charges or convictions) is a problem that many states are now addressing - some through their privacy laws, some through defamation laws.

Georgia, if I am not mistaken (and I will post back if I am), has found that the online publication of mug shots can be an invasion of privacy. While the photos posted on the Facebook page are obviously different than mug shots (because mug shots indicate an arrest has already been made, even though they do not indicate the outcome of the arrest), these photos (ones posted indicating the person is a person of interest) may be even more harmful.

Speaking with an attorney in your area might be a smart thing to do, brentyoung - especially since the publication of your photo has resulted in severe economic harm.

Good luck.