Popeyes manager fired for refusing to pay back $400 taken in armed robbery

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Pregnant restaurant manager fired after armed robbery

"By the back of my shirt, he pulled me up and he pushed me to the front," she said. "He told me to give him everything out of my safe."
“I told them I'm not paying nothing. I just had a gun to me. I'm not paying the money.”
But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
After the robbery, Holcomb claimed that one of her managers gave her a choice: Pay the money back or be fired. Less than 36 hours later, she was fired.
"I don't think it's right because now I'm struggling for my family," she said. "What I had to do (was) keep my life."

However, a spokesman in the company's human resources department said Holcomb was fired because she didn't follow company policy, leaving too much money in the cash register. And this wasn't her first offense.

To be fair she was fired for having too much money in the register, against store policy. Its a stupid policy to fire someone over, but she isn't being fired for being robbed and giving up the cash, its not putting it into the safe quick enough.

according to Popeye's. According to her it was for not paying 400 bucks.

They gave her an "out". pay the money back to keep your job. The firing was over the policy breach.

She chose...I'll sue your ass for $5.5 mil for firing me

She doesn't have much of a case if she did break the work rules.

Yes she does. The ace up her lawyer's sleeve was the offer to let her keep her job for $400.

Paycheck Deductions for Uniforms Cash Shortages Tools and More Nolo.com

Paycheck Deductions for Uniforms, Cash Shortages, Tools, and More
Some employers deduct the cost of uniforms and other supplies necessary for the job from employees' paychecks. And some deduct costs to cover shortages in an employee's cash register or items an employee breaks or damages on the job.

Not all of these paycheck deductions are legal. Some states don't allow employers to pass certain costs on to employees. Even in states that allow employers to make these types of deductions, employers have to follow certain rules. Here are the basic rules governing paycheck deductions. (This article summarizes the federal rules and gives some information on state variations; to find out what your state allows and prohibits, contact your state department of labor.)

Uniforms
Federal law allows employers to deduct the cost of supplying and maintaining a uniform (for example, having it cleaned and pressed) from an employee's paycheck, as long as the employee's wages after the deduction don't fall below the minimum wage. (The federal minimum wage is $7.25 as of July 24, 2009.) If an employee earns the minimum wage, the employer may not require the employee to pay for a uniform, through payroll deductions or otherwise.

Some state laws are stricter. For example, some states-- including New Jersey -- prohibit employers from charging employees or requiring employees to buy a uniform that has a company logo or can't be used as street wear. And, a number of states don't allow employers to charge employees for uniforms.

Tools and Equipment
The federal law for tools and equipment is the same as for uniforms: Employers may require employees to pay for them, whether through payroll deductions or otherwise, only if the employee's pay after deductions is at least equal to the minimum wage.

And, like the rule for uniforms, state laws may differ. In Oregon, for example, employers may require employees to pay for their work tools as long as the employee earns more than the minimum wage, but payroll deductions for this purpose aren't allowed. In California, employees can't be required to pay for job-related tools; the employer must provide them.

Meals and Lodging
Federal law allows employers to deduct the cost of providing food and lodging to employees, even if those deductions bring the employee's total pay to less than the minimum wage. In fast food restaurants, for example, employers often charge employees the cost of a meal to be eaten during their shift, even though employees typically hold minimum-wage jobs.

Employers may deduct meals and lodging only if those items are customarily provided to employees in the industry. And, the employer may deduct only the reasonable cost of the items provided, not what it would charge for the items.

Although most states also allow employers to deduct the cost of meals and lodging provided to employees, there are legal limits. In California, for example, employees must voluntarily agree, in writing, to the deductions. A number of states, including Connecticut and New Hampshire, put a dollar limit on the amount an employer can deduct.

Breakage and Cash Register Shortages
If your cash register drawer comes up short or you damage merchandise, can your employer charge you for the loss? Under federal law, the general rule applies: As long as the employee still earns at least the minimum wage after deductions, there's no rule against charging losses and damage to the employee.

Many states have adopted stricter rules, however. Some states require employers to get the employee's consent, in writing, before they can deduct the cost of broken merchandise or shortages from the employee's paycheck. Some allow these deductions only from an employee who assumes responsibility for the loss.

California doesn't allow these deductions at all, unless the employer can show that the employee acted dishonestly, willfully, or in a grossly negligent manner. California considers ordinary losses and shortages to be part of the cost of doing business, which should legally be borne by the employer, not passed on to employees.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In some countries a sort of quasi-slavery is practiced by paying employees but then deducting costs for various "expenses". This kind of slavery was at center in the movie "Run Down". In America, not only is outright slavery outlawed, but also "slavery creep" where wages are increasingly compromised by deductions to the point that it virtually becomes slavery. Simply put, Popeye's CANNOT charge an employee $400 to keep her job. Period. The attempt to do so will ensure a successful lawsuit.

 

[EverCurious]

That's only if the manager specifically said "If you pay back the money you can keep your job" - highly unlikely.

It's far more likely that the owner/her manager said something along the lines of, "company policy states that you are responsible for the $400 shortage in the tills," then separately after she refused something like "you are refusing to follow another company policy. We are going to have to let you go." Which she then self-interpreted and spit out to the media as "if I had paid the $400 I could have kept my job."

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

That's only if the manager specifically said "If you pay back the money you can keep your job" - highly unlikely.

It's far more likely that the owner/her manager said something along the lines of, "company policy states that you are responsible for the $400 shortage in the tills," then separately after she refused something like "you are refusing to follow another company policy. We are going to have to let you go." Which she then self-interpreted and spit out to the media as "if I had paid the $400 I could have kept my job."

It's the same thing. You just worded it differently.

Just so you know.

 

[EverCurious]

The first is telling her about company policy that requires her to pay back the shortage in the tills. The second is a statement that she is refusing to follow multiple company policies and being fired for it. - aka not following the first policy of moving the money from registers to vault when it hits X, and the second policy being her liability for any shortages in the tills.

Don't become a lawyer...

 

[Mertex]

That's only if the manager specifically said "If you pay back the money you can keep your job" - highly unlikely.

It's far more likely that the owner/her manager said something along the lines of, "company policy states that you are responsible for the $400 shortage in the tills," then separately after she refused something like "you are refusing to follow another company policy. We are going to have to let you go." Which she then self-interpreted and spit out to the media as "if I had paid the $400 I could have kept my job."

Where are you coming up with these "he said she said"? It sure seems like you want the poor pregnant woman to be at fault. She is unable get another job because nobody is going to hire someone that is about to deliver a a baby? She's obviously telling the truth, because she was fired less than 36 hrs after the robbery. What kind of human being fires a pregnant woman after she has been put through hell by a robber? Only a heartless greedy sort would, and you seem to be one since you really are pulling for the heartless greedy manager.

Why don't you offer to pay up the $5 million, and help the company since you think they are right and she is wrong?

 

[EverCurious]

Where are you coming up with these "he said she said"? It sure seems like you want the poor pregnant woman to be at fault. She is unable get another job because nobody is going to hire someone that is about to deliver a a baby? She's obviously telling the truth, because she was fired less than 36 hrs after the robbery. What kind of human being fires a pregnant woman after she has been put through hell by a robber? Only a heartless greedy sort would, and you seem to be one since you really are pulling for the heartless greedy manager.

Why don't you offer to pay up the $5 million, and help the company since you think they are right and she is wrong?

Do I /really/ need to explain this on a debate board??

I responded to saintmichaeldefendthem's argument that it wa illegal for Popeye's to "charge her $400 to keep her job" because of the article he posted. (Which ironically doesn't even support his argument; "Breakage and Cash Register Shortages. If your cash register drawer comes up short or you damage merchandise, can your employer charge you for the loss? Under federal law, the general rule applies: As long as the employee still earns at least the minimum wage after deductions, there's no rule against charging losses and damage to the employee.")

However, even under the proposed theory that rule does not apply in this case, her lawyer would have to prove that the manager essentially attempted to bribe her. Which by her own statements to the media is clearly NOT the case - "pay back the money stolen from her cash register or lose her job.") I merely offered a more likely scenario for how the conversation went down.

*As a note, I went ahead and looked up the actual law for Texas Texas - Wage Payment Laws - Employment Law Handbook Texas requires written consent for said deductions, I can almost guarantee you that at least this bit is true for a shift manager - "If an employer uses a handbook, policy manual or other similar document instead of a separate writing, the employee’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of company policies can be authorization to withhold wages if the acknowledgment meets the consent requirements listed above. The signed acknowledgment of receipt must also include language that states that the employee agrees to abide by or be bound to the authorization for deduction."


In any event, I'm pulling for employer's to have the right to fire employees who don't follow company policies, if it makes me "greedy" for not wanting companies to have to continue to pay people who refuse to follow company poilicies, then sure, guilty as charged.

Hell no I wouldn't /ever/ pay that $5mil. Personally, I'd not have fired her in the first place because of the PR disaster.

Franchise? I would have fired the manager who fired her immediately and told the press that they too were outraged, then canned her 6-8 months down the road if/when she didn't straighten up and follow company policy. Dollars to doughnuts the manager that fired her was a family member of the franchise owners or they would have thrown his/her stupid ass under the bus already though.

Corporate? With the bad PR already done... we've taken a slight hit on the market, but its nothing to worry about. Personally, I'm a stickler so I'd deny reissue of his franchise license, reissue the franchise license to another local, plaster "under new management" all over the place, and tell the media and the public that I was outraged and took action to hold that terrible franchise owner accountable for his "lack of morals" (aka throw the franchise under the bus.) However, its cheaper to just rug the situation and force the franchise to deal with their own mess - so they forced them to rehire her. Now /if/ she brings suit, corporate just points at franchise and says "we told him to rehire and don't condone his actions" which limits corporate's liability.

 

[Esmeralda]

In any event, I'm pulling for employer's to have the right to fire employees who don't follow company policies, if it makes me "greedy" for not wanting companies to have to continue to pay people who refuse to follow company poilicies, then sure, guilty as charged.

It doesn't make you greedy, it makes you an asshole. And I guarantee you, it is not a precedent that will be set in America, 'land of the free, home of the brave.'

Making an employee pay back what was stolen during a robbery, especially when that employee was held at gunpoint? No way. Will never happen. And more than likely, she will prevail with a lawsuit.

 

[EverCurious]

In any event, I'm pulling for employer's to have the right to fire employees who don't follow company policies, if it makes me "greedy" for not wanting companies to have to continue to pay people who refuse to follow company poilicies, then sure, guilty as charged.

It doesn't make you greedy, it makes you an asshole. And I guarantee you, it is not a precedent that will be set in America, 'land of the free, home of the brave.'

Making an employee pay back what was stolen during a robbery, especially when that employee was held at gunpoint? No way. Will never happen. And more than likely, she will prevail with a lawsuit.

Well, as I said, I wouldn't have fired her and they were stupid to do so.

That said, I'll take "greedy" AND "asshole" for expecting people to follow the rules if they want to work for someone else. If they don't like following those rules, then they can go find another job. Again, welcome to the real world.

 

[Esmeralda]

That's only if the manager specifically said "If you pay back the money you can keep your job" - highly unlikely.

It's far more likely that the owner/her manager said something along the lines of, "company policy states that you are responsible for the $400 shortage in the tills," then separately after she refused something like "you are refusing to follow another company policy. We are going to have to let you go." Which she then self-interpreted and spit out to the media as "if I had paid the $400 I could have kept my job."

Where are you coming up with these "he said she said"? It sure seems like you want the poor pregnant woman to be at fault. She is unable get another job because nobody is going to hire someone that is about to deliver a a baby? She's obviously telling the truth, because she was fired less than 36 hrs after the robbery. What kind of human being fires a pregnant woman after she has been put through hell by a robber? Only a heartless greedy sort would, and you seem to be one since you really are pulling for the heartless greedy manager.

Why don't you offer to pay up the $5 million, and help the company since you think they are right and she is wrong?

He has declared a position and is tenaciously hanging onto it no matter what--until Hell freezes over.

 

[Mertex]

Where are you coming up with these "he said she said"? It sure seems like you want the poor pregnant woman to be at fault. She is unable get another job because nobody is going to hire someone that is about to deliver a a baby? She's obviously telling the truth, because she was fired less than 36 hrs after the robbery. What kind of human being fires a pregnant woman after she has been put through hell by a robber? Only a heartless greedy sort would, and you seem to be one since you really are pulling for the heartless greedy manager.

Why don't you offer to pay up the $5 million, and help the company since you think they are right and she is wrong?

Do I /really/ need to explain this on a debate board??

So far, your posts have been in line with the manager that did the firing. If you had been right, no lawyer would have taken the case for the fired employee.

I responded to saintmichaeldefendthem's argument that it wa illegal for Popeye's to "charge her $400 to keep her job" because of the article he posted. (Which ironically doesn't even support his argument; "Breakage and Cash Register Shortages. If your cash register drawer comes up short or you damage merchandise, can your employer charge you for the loss? Under federal law, the general rule applies: As long as the employee still earns at least the minimum wage after deductions, there's no rule against charging losses and damage to the employee.")

If the drawer comes up short, under other circumstances, yes, the manager should hold some employee responsible, but surely not due to an armed robbery. Anyone with more compassion for people than for money would know immediately that in such a case the person comes first, unless of course, they were to prove that the employee was an accomplice of the armed robber. You are totally wrong that the employer can charge an employee for robbed money regardless of whether the employee still earns at least the minimum wage. Show a link where that has ever been done successfully.

However, even under the proposed theory that rule does not apply in this case, her lawyer would have to prove that the manager essentially attempted to bribe her. Which by her own statements to the media is clearly NOT the case - "pay back the money stolen from her cash register or lose her job.") I merely offered a more likely scenario for how the conversation went down.

Your statements made it seem like the employee was lying and the manager was ethical. You have no proof of it.

*As a note, I went ahead and looked up the actual law for Texas Texas - Wage Payment Laws - Employment Law Handbook Texas requires written consent for said deductions, I can almost guarantee you that at least this bit is true for a shift manager - "If an employer uses a handbook, policy manual or other similar document instead of a separate writing, the employee’s signed acknowledgment of receipt of company policies can be authorization to withhold wages if the acknowledgment meets the consent requirements listed above. The signed acknowledgment of receipt must also include language that states that the employee agrees to abide by or be bound to the authorization for deduction."


In any event, I'm pulling for employer's to have the right to fire employees who don't follow company policies, if it makes me "greedy" for not wanting companies to have to continue to pay people who refuse to follow company poilicies, then sure, guilty as charged.

Nobody is arguing that the employers don't have the right to fire employees who don't follow company policies.....you are totally dense in this regard, what is being argued is the fact that the manager waited until after the employee was put through a traumatic situation to bring up the fact that she wasn't following policy. That is what is so abhorring, his total lack of compassion for her situation. Managers have the right to demand employees follow company policy, but they also should be compassionate to their employees, they are not robots. The fact that you fail to see this is what makes you like the manager.

Hell no I wouldn't /ever/ pay that $5mil. Personally, I'd not have fired her in the first place because of the PR disaster.

Well, that's a change of attitude. Here all along you've been saying that the manager was right.....make up your mind.

Franchise? I would have fired the manager who fired her immediately and told the press that they too were outraged, then canned her 6-8 months down the road if/when she didn't straighten up and follow company policy. Dollars to doughnuts the manager that fired her was a family member of the franchise owners or they would have thrown his/her stupid ass under the bus already though.

Corporate? With the bad PR already done... we've taken a slight hit on the market, but its nothing to worry about. Personally, I'm a stickler so I'd deny reissue of his franchise license, reissue the franchise license to another local, plaster "under new management" all over the place, and tell the media and the public that I was outraged and took action to hold that terrible franchise owner accountable for his "lack of morals" (aka throw the franchise under the bus.) However, its cheaper to just rug the situation and force the franchise to deal with their own mess - so they forced them to rehire her. Now /if/ she brings suit, corporate just points at franchise and says "we told him to rehire and don't condone his actions" which limits corporate's liability.

Popeye's has already done everything to restore their name, they've given the woman a job in another location. The Popeye's where she was robbed has been all over the news for the stupid manager doing what he did and will have to suffer the loss....that she'll probably get more than $2k from them and that people were turned off and will boycott them personally.

 

[Mertex]

That said, I'll take "greedy" AND "asshole" for expecting people to follow the rules if they want to work for someone else. If they don't like following those rules, then they can go find another job. Again, welcome to the real world.

And hopefully you won't be like the ignorant manager and wait until they are put through a traumatic situation to fire them. That was really dumb, and that manager is surely kicking himself in the ass for having done what he did.

And again....you're missing the whole point....nobody is saying that employees don't have to follow rules or that the manager should keep employees that don't follow rules....pay attention.....we're saying he picked the wrong time to fire the employee and to add insult to injury, demand that she pay back what was robbed....GOT IT?

 

[GHook93]

Pregnant restaurant manager fired after armed robbery

"By the back of my shirt, he pulled me up and he pushed me to the front," she said. "He told me to give him everything out of my safe."
“I told them I'm not paying nothing. I just had a gun to me. I'm not paying the money.”
But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
After the robbery, Holcomb claimed that one of her managers gave her a choice: Pay the money back or be fired. Less than 36 hours later, she was fired.
"I don't think it's right because now I'm struggling for my family," she said. "What I had to do (was) keep my life."

However, a spokesman in the company's human resources department said Holcomb was fired because she didn't follow company policy, leaving too much money in the cash register. And this wasn't her first offense.

Holcomb said that Tuesday was busy: The restaurant offers a two-piece chicken meal for $1.19, and she moved money into the safe as fast as she could.
"They got what they got because that's what we made within one hour," she said


A manager often has to keep business flowing during a busy period rather than stopping to move cash.

So boycott the location. My bet it's in a black neighborhood and blacks won't give a fuck or pay close enough attention to care.

This is bullshit because say the woman fought back, she would have been fired for that if not killed. And the ignorance of a franchise owner asking for a probably slightly over minimum wage worker to pay $400 back. That might be more than she makes in a week! I don't each fried chicken often, but popeyes was my favorite. No more Popeyes for me.

 

[danielpalos]

I hope senior management helps out more often during peak traffic hours instead of being so Capitalist and merely blaming the less wealthy.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I hope senior management helps out more often during peak traffic hours instead of being so Capitalist and merely blaming the less wealthy.

Agreed. In fact, they should have an itinerant armed guard who goes from location to location within a franchise throughout the day to move the cash into the drop safe. This would be the proper way to do it since cashiers are neither equipped nor trained in the security aspects of handling cash. But what fast food restaurants do instead cut costs by having unarmed employees transferring large sums of cash and then blame that employee when something goes wrong.

I fully agree with you. Senior management is to blame and firing an employee because their cheap, corner cutting tactics backfired is just shitty.

 

[rightwinger]

Pregnant restaurant manager fired after armed robbery

"By the back of my shirt, he pulled me up and he pushed me to the front," she said. "He told me to give him everything out of my safe."
“I told them I'm not paying nothing. I just had a gun to me. I'm not paying the money.”
But the only thing Holcomb could open were the registers. The gunman got away with nearly $400.
After the robbery, Holcomb claimed that one of her managers gave her a choice: Pay the money back or be fired. Less than 36 hours later, she was fired.
"I don't think it's right because now I'm struggling for my family," she said. "What I had to do (was) keep my life."

However, a spokesman in the company's human resources department said Holcomb was fired because she didn't follow company policy, leaving too much money in the cash register. And this wasn't her first offense.

Holcomb said that Tuesday was busy: The restaurant offers a two-piece chicken meal for $1.19, and she moved money into the safe as fast as she could.
"They got what they got because that's what we made within one hour," she said


A manager often has to keep business flowing during a busy period rather than stopping to move cash.

So boycott the location. My bet it's in a black neighborhood and blacks won't give a fuck or pay close enough attention to care.

This is bullshit because say the woman fought back, she would have been fired for that if not killed. And the ignorance of a franchise owner asking for a probably slightly over minimum wage worker to pay $400 back. That might be more than she makes in a week! I don't each fried chicken often, but popeyes was my favorite. No more Popeyes for me.

$400 does not seem like a lot to me at a busy fast food location. I imagine there are always times when the manager is busy with other tasks and is unable to cash out the drawers. If she had allowed a whole days receipts to accumulate, I can see where she should be fired

Regardless, you don't Fire an employee who just put her life on the line for your business