What is the name of your state? Alabama
On January 10, 2006, a former employee of a major movie rental corporation was terminated after a 40 minute interveiw with that company's loss prevention specialist, and one of the company's District Managers. The former employee had no clue why he was being interrogated, nor did he know the ramifications that it could have on his job. The loss prevention agent asked me all sorts of questions stemming from questions of a funny nature to questions about sexual harassment, and internal theft. Several current and former employees, take drinks from the store coolers, and pay for them all in a lump on a said day of the week, or pay period, or another day that was established. The former employee's store manager had no idea that doing this was wrong and never said anything to any of the other employees that it was wrong. The former employee loved his job and he thought he was doing everything correctly and to the best of his ability. The former employee was actually asked by the Loss Prevention agent how many sodas did he currently owe for, and he told him, and the loss prevention agent asked him if he could take care of them, and the former employee said of course he could. The former employee went straight to the ATM, and came back and paid for them. After paying for them, he was asked to step outside with the District Manager and she then informed him that "She was sorry, and the you need to give me your keys to the store." He asked her, "So I don't have a job?" and she said, "You said yourself that you stole from the company!" He then left the store and mingled with some of his former associates and their families. Now here is the problem, he never stole anything! He never took with the intention to never return to the company. He paid for everything that heever took from the company. And was kicked out of a job on top of that. However.....
You have heard about one employee's story now for the other. Directly after the above mentioned employee had been fired from the company, the store manager walked in to find three store managers from other stores in the District, the district manager, and the Loss Prevention specialist from the company. He was then interrogated for over an hour, and was questioned in pretty much the same manner, that the above mentioned, employee was questioned. He was then asked if he had any property that belonged to the store, which he had a movie that he had rented, as well as a few unpaid sodas, which he was going to pay for. He was then asked to go home and get the movie and the money for the sodas. He then went directly to his vehicle, where the above stated employee was waiting asking what was going on. The above stated employee relayed a message that, the loss prevention specialist was going to perform a store audit, to see what was missing. The store manager, then went home and returned his keys to the store, movie, and money for the drinks, to the store via his wife. The store manager whom had raised the company's profit exponentially, was forced to either quit or be terminated. Therefore he resigned!
See now all of this makes for an interesting story, but here is what brings all of these facts together. Both of the above stated employees were male. And they just happened to be the only two males working at the store at the time. No females were released from the store, however two did decide to voluntarily quit after they had heard, what had happened to the former employees. Out of six employees, the only two employees that were male, were either terminated or forced to resign. Now, whether this serves as a violation of the above mentioned employees' civil rights, I don't exactly know, but I do know that in the State of Alabama, stealing is knowing taking something with the intention of never returning it. And if the first employee mentioned, had stole anything he would have never had paid for those sodas. If the store manager, had stolen something from the company, he would have never paid for those sodas either. The two associates, jobs were taken from them, for an offense that didn't exist. Also, in that company's Store Operations Manual, there should be a statement from that company's corporate office, that states that any employee, that had not completed the company's training modules, could never be held liable for any offenses against the company. Now, this might make all of this even worse, but neither the hourly employee, nor the store manager ever completed any training module. Therefore, two employees are jobless, for offenses that not only do not exist, but for offenses for which they could not be held liable for.
These statement do not include the several instances the two former employees have had their character defamed by the new store manager and other manager from other stores within that. The new store manager had actually told several customer, in front of a current employee whom still associates with the former employees, about the circumstances surrounding the termination and resignation of the two former employees.
Now here is the question does these two former employees have grounds for a lawsuit against their former employer and their former corporation?
On January 10, 2006, a former employee of a major movie rental corporation was terminated after a 40 minute interveiw with that company's loss prevention specialist, and one of the company's District Managers. The former employee had no clue why he was being interrogated, nor did he know the ramifications that it could have on his job. The loss prevention agent asked me all sorts of questions stemming from questions of a funny nature to questions about sexual harassment, and internal theft. Several current and former employees, take drinks from the store coolers, and pay for them all in a lump on a said day of the week, or pay period, or another day that was established. The former employee's store manager had no idea that doing this was wrong and never said anything to any of the other employees that it was wrong. The former employee loved his job and he thought he was doing everything correctly and to the best of his ability. The former employee was actually asked by the Loss Prevention agent how many sodas did he currently owe for, and he told him, and the loss prevention agent asked him if he could take care of them, and the former employee said of course he could. The former employee went straight to the ATM, and came back and paid for them. After paying for them, he was asked to step outside with the District Manager and she then informed him that "She was sorry, and the you need to give me your keys to the store." He asked her, "So I don't have a job?" and she said, "You said yourself that you stole from the company!" He then left the store and mingled with some of his former associates and their families. Now here is the problem, he never stole anything! He never took with the intention to never return to the company. He paid for everything that heever took from the company. And was kicked out of a job on top of that. However.....
You have heard about one employee's story now for the other. Directly after the above mentioned employee had been fired from the company, the store manager walked in to find three store managers from other stores in the District, the district manager, and the Loss Prevention specialist from the company. He was then interrogated for over an hour, and was questioned in pretty much the same manner, that the above mentioned, employee was questioned. He was then asked if he had any property that belonged to the store, which he had a movie that he had rented, as well as a few unpaid sodas, which he was going to pay for. He was then asked to go home and get the movie and the money for the sodas. He then went directly to his vehicle, where the above stated employee was waiting asking what was going on. The above stated employee relayed a message that, the loss prevention specialist was going to perform a store audit, to see what was missing. The store manager, then went home and returned his keys to the store, movie, and money for the drinks, to the store via his wife. The store manager whom had raised the company's profit exponentially, was forced to either quit or be terminated. Therefore he resigned!
See now all of this makes for an interesting story, but here is what brings all of these facts together. Both of the above stated employees were male. And they just happened to be the only two males working at the store at the time. No females were released from the store, however two did decide to voluntarily quit after they had heard, what had happened to the former employees. Out of six employees, the only two employees that were male, were either terminated or forced to resign. Now, whether this serves as a violation of the above mentioned employees' civil rights, I don't exactly know, but I do know that in the State of Alabama, stealing is knowing taking something with the intention of never returning it. And if the first employee mentioned, had stole anything he would have never had paid for those sodas. If the store manager, had stolen something from the company, he would have never paid for those sodas either. The two associates, jobs were taken from them, for an offense that didn't exist. Also, in that company's Store Operations Manual, there should be a statement from that company's corporate office, that states that any employee, that had not completed the company's training modules, could never be held liable for any offenses against the company. Now, this might make all of this even worse, but neither the hourly employee, nor the store manager ever completed any training module. Therefore, two employees are jobless, for offenses that not only do not exist, but for offenses for which they could not be held liable for.
These statement do not include the several instances the two former employees have had their character defamed by the new store manager and other manager from other stores within that. The new store manager had actually told several customer, in front of a current employee whom still associates with the former employees, about the circumstances surrounding the termination and resignation of the two former employees.
Now here is the question does these two former employees have grounds for a lawsuit against their former employer and their former corporation?
Last edited:
