An employee goes out of his way to help a customer or stranger in need. He gets the job done and was mighty proud of himself. The person in distress thanked him and witnesses to the good deed cheered him on. He was called to the office of his supervisor. Deep inside he was embarrassed to receive any form of accolade or commendation because he just did what every human being would – help someone who needs it, especially if it’s a customer. The employee wasn’t sure whether he heard the word right. Suspended pending investigation? Days later while he’s still reeling in disbelief, the employee was informed that the investigation is over and they decided to fire him.
While the above scenario may seem unfair to the employee, his colleagues, the customers, and the public in general, termination is a fitting sanction in the eyes of the employer. When an employee is formally hired, he signs an employment contract. Employment contracts enumerate company policies, rules and regulations, and by signing the contract, he binds himself to the provisions of this agreement. Most often than not, it stipulates that an employee can be sanctioned for failing to observe these policies, rules and regulations. Sanctions may take the form of a reprimand, suspension or termination of employment; and as we have seen in the abovementioned cases, it can result in losing one’s employment.
This is the harsh reality – obey or be fired, and “humanitarian reasons”, “loyalty to the company” or “customer service” are not a valid defenses. It can happen to you; it can happen to anybody who is employed and gets overzealous in helping a stranger in need. Take the case of the following individuals who lost their jobs for not following policies, rules and regulations to the letter notwithstanding their good intentions:
David Bowers, a store greeter in a branch of Meijer’s in Michigan left his post to help a customer whose truck was on fire. He was able to put out the fire, the customer he helped was thankful, but he lost his job for leaving his post. Prior to that, years ago, he was suspended for leaving his post to chase a shop lifter. It didn’t matter whether his intention was to help customer or protect the company’s interests. The bottom line was that he left his post which is against the company’s policy, period.
In Denver, Colorado, Paul Shoemaker and Mike McGhee who were Sprint employees were fired for chasing and capturing an Apple Store shoplifter. They saw an elderly mall cop chasing the thief and did what they thought they should do as responsible citizens. Apple was thankful for the job well done but both men lost their jobs because Sprint has a policy against intervening in shoplifting cases.
Kristopher Oswald, a Wal-Mart employee in Michigan was fired for intervening and coming to the defense of a woman being assaulted in the parking lot during his lunch break. The company have rules about violence; he was supposed to “call the store’s manager and not get involved”. It did not matter if violence occurred while he was defending the company’s customer, he violated the company’s policy. After the backlash from the public, Wal-Mart offered to give Oswald his job back but he refused the offer. In 2011 at a Wal-Mart branch in Salt Lake City, Utah, several employees were fired for disarming a shoplifter. Why? Wal-Mart employees are supposed to “withdraw” from the situation if the aggressor is armed.
In 2009, 65 year old Josh Rutner was fired for chasing a knife wielding Wal-Mart shoplifter in Florida. This is against Wal-Mart’s “do not chase” policy. Rutner told the Examiner that “It is a non-re-hirable offense” and he cannot even come back to be a greeter. Similar to Rutner’s case, Karen Sizemore chased a shoplifter and was fired from Lowes in Kentucky after eighteen years of service for violating the “do not chase” policy.
Sharon Snyder, a Missouri clerk of court was fired by the Jackson County Circuit judge nine months short of her retirement (after 34 years as a court employee) for giving legal advice to a man convicted of rape. Snyder helped Robert Nelson file a motion to have him tested with DNA evidence to prove his innocence. Nelson was exonerated after the evidence was processed, there being proof that he did not commit the crime, but Snyder was fired for insubordination, specifically for helping Nelson.
Long Island school bus driver George Daw was fired for helping the Nassau County police during a hail storm filled the latter’s car with water. According to the school, he is fired for picking up unscheduled passengers, again, never mind if he helped people who were in danger and they were police officers at that.
In Florida, lifeguard Tomas Lopez lost his job for saving someone outside of his jurisdiction. While it is his duty to save people from drowning, he is supposed to be limited by his jurisdiction. He was fired for putting in jeopardy beach goers within his jurisdiction, and that the company could have been held liable for that should there have been an unfortunate incident while he was not on his post. Jeff Ellis and Associates, the aquatic safety contractor said that Lopez knew the rules, he had a choice, but rules are rules.
As we have seen, an individual who does something good for his neighbor can be punished after all, and it does not pay to be loyal to the company either by protecting its interests. In all of the above instances, the good deed itself was not punished but the violation of the company’s or government agency’s rule warranted the termination of employment.
This justification of terminating one’s employment is in accordance with the Latin legal maxim dura lex sed lex – the law is harsh but it is the law, and the law includes policies, rules and regulations. Are the policies laid down by the company or organization harsh? Yes. Is it valid? Yes. Is it morally right? Maybe not, and companies who implement such policies with iron fists may not always get public approval. In fact, it can be good publicity gone sour for the company or government agency that fires an employee for being a Good Samaritan. Does the employee have a choice to act accordingly? Yes, but he should be prepared to suffer the consequences. Some like Rutner understand why they were fired, others continue to fight for justice (reinstatement and/or damages), and some just probably charge it to experience but live without regrets.
My take: If you are an employee, be sure to know your company’s policies. Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse). Think before you act because it could cost you your job, but if you do a humanitarian act, I hope you will not regret that you acted accordingly. On the other hand, if you are an authoritative figure in a company or government agency, would you rather have an employee who is morally upright, compassionate and will go lengths to help others, or would you rather have someone who can understand simple English and follow policies to the letter?
This blog is not legal advice, but shares information on the law. We are living in hard times; people lose their jobs and many are struggling to make ends meet. Legalbargain.net gives back to society by sharing it’s knowledge to put justice within the reach of those who believe justice is only for those with money.
Comments