employees fired after disarming gunman caught shoplifting

[Aaron]

Covering their asses from what though?

[Sela]

If a month from now these guys want to sue for PTSD, psychological trauma, and "achy back".

[Aaron]

PTSD in a month? Good luck with that.

Why the hell would you sue Wal*Mart for shit like that anyways, wouldn't you have to prove some sort of negligence on their part?

[Sela]

Dont' get me wrong - what Wal Mart loses here in public perception and PR is not gonna be worth what they might theoretically cover in terms of protecting their ass. That's what my post was about. But you know how sue-happy people are these-a-days. If they can't use the defense "we didn't want you to put yourself in that situation", then emotional damages and stress is a legit lawsuit. Same way that you can sue for ridiculous amounts of "whiplash" after a minor car accident at a low low speed.

[PeZook]

I was going to bring out the bank thing myself: it's generally better to just let the guy go than turn an armed robbery into a hostage situation.

The other part is that we do not have the clearest idea of the situation involved. It can only be ascertained by a long and torturous process of interrogating everyone involved, cross-referencing their claims, then interrogating them AGAIN, etc.

A newspaper article is generally a poor source to make such judgements because newspapers get tiny but important details wrong all the fucking time. In a sane country, of course, it would all be done by a court to ascertain if the employees were fired unjustly or not ; But since as was pointed out this is an "at will employment" state I guess they can fire the guys just because.

[gizmojumpjet]

I never said they were unreasonable, but considering Kansas Castle Laws, an attorney could possibly argue that the employees had no duty to retreat once the robber had the gun pointed at them.

You just don't get it do you? No, legally, they had no duty to retreat. However, neither does Wal-Mart have any duty to employ them. This is what at-will employment means. If you're an at-will employee, Wal-Mart can fire you for any reason, or no reason. The only thing they can't do is fire you for being black or being Jewish, a woman, etc. They can't discriminate.

There is no discrimination issue here.

[LaCroix]

I wonder what Wal-Marts policy on hostage situation is? Because at the point he grabbed the employee and put a gun to his back, they didn't have a shoplifting situation anymore.

[Coalition]

What I don't get is the PR angle of it. I'd think WalMart would - since nobody got hurt - simply neglect to fire these people. That would seem the most logical course of action; sure - they broke the policy, but they did so in a way that ended up bringing about the greatest good to the greatest number and didn't break the law doing it. The police have no problem with it, etc.

The other option would be verbal reprimands a far up the chain as possible, plus legal yelling at them for the potential problems. Their time would be paid for, they would understand why what they did was not a good idea, and it would not go on their record permanently (vs written reprimands).

As an aside, this sort of situation would be added to the company policy, so everyone knows what to do next time. Hopefully other companies are also taking notes and ideas.

[Broomstick]

It's a tricky situation and I can understand the corporate side from the view of managing the staff as an entire group - a live guy with a pink slip is better than a dead hero.

It's a win for management, but in the US right now being fired for cause essentially means you will never be employed by anyone ever again. If you can't strike out on your own as an entrepreneur (given Wal-mart wages, it's unlikely these folks have the resources to do that) you are well and truly fucked. Alive, but without income in a society without a safety net.