Walgreen Michigan Pharmacist is Suing for Wrongful Termination - Does He Have a Case?

[PoliticalChic]

Walgreens becoming an easy target for pharmacy holdups

Pharmacy robberies have been rising steadily over the past several years, in the Twin Cities and across the nation. But the pain is not shared equally across all the various drugstore chains. In the past five years, two-thirds of the robberies have taken place at Walgreens.

This year, 16 of the 19 pharmacy robberies in Minneapolis have been at Walgreens. The Uptown, Northeast, and Midtown Lake Street Walgreens have been robbed four times each, the Walgreens on Hiawatha three times.

"It's scary," said a Walgreens pharmacist at the store in Calhoun Village, who didn't want her name used, since Walgreens does not allow its employees to talk to the press.

The string of robberies concerns Lt. Mike Fossum of the Minneapolis Police Department.

"Sobota ended up cooperating with us and told the reason they prefer Walgreens: 'They give you everything you ask for and more,'" recalls Fossum, who interviewed the Unibrow Robber after his arrest. "And they feel like they get cheated at CVS because they give them less."

In a recent CNBC documentary it was noted that Walgreens is the most robbed retail chain. Thieves steal over $2 million every day from Walgreens retail stores. Not only are the stores robbed but the delivery trucks are also hijacked the most. Walgreens looses $1 billion a year to theft & unnecessarily endangers their employees, contractors & customers lives due to their company policy.

Wish I could rep you again for great research!!

 

[Ernie S.]

Walgreens becoming an easy target for pharmacy holdups

Pharmacy robberies have been rising steadily over the past several years, in the Twin Cities and across the nation. But the pain is not shared equally across all the various drugstore chains. In the past five years, two-thirds of the robberies have taken place at Walgreens.

This year, 16 of the 19 pharmacy robberies in Minneapolis have been at Walgreens. The Uptown, Northeast, and Midtown Lake Street Walgreens have been robbed four times each, the Walgreens on Hiawatha three times.

"It's scary," said a Walgreens pharmacist at the store in Calhoun Village, who didn't want her name used, since Walgreens does not allow its employees to talk to the press.

The string of robberies concerns Lt. Mike Fossum of the Minneapolis Police Department.

"Sobota ended up cooperating with us and told the reason they prefer Walgreens: 'They give you everything you ask for and more,'" recalls Fossum, who interviewed the Unibrow Robber after his arrest. "And they feel like they get cheated at CVS because they give them less."

In a recent CNBC documentary it was noted that Walgreens is the most robbed retail chain. Thieves steal over $2 million every day from Walgreens retail stores. Not only are the stores robbed but the delivery trucks are also hijacked the most. Walgreens looses $1 billion a year to theft & unnecessarily endangers their employees, contractors & customers lives due to their company policy.

Wish I could rep you again for great research!!

I hit him some for ya.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the Pharmacist has no case. He knew the company policy and, right or wrong, he agreed to that policy when he took the job.

Where Walgreens is wrong, I think, is that they won't make an exception in this case and won't rethink their policy. But that is their right, and I can understand enforcing the consequences without prejudice lest other employees do the same and then fight the consequences based on precedent.

It is also my right to work for them or not assuming they would hire me in the first place.

I would not like to work in a place in which the employees had no means of self defense and were under orders not to use any means of self defense against robbers. Most especially if the place was open all hours and had liquor, cigarettes, and hard drugs for sale on premises.

 

[Ernie S.]

In my opinion the Pharmacist has no case. He knew the company policy and, right or wrong, he agreed to that policy when he took the job.

Where Walgreens is wrong, I think, is that they won't make an exception in this case and won't rethink their policy. But that is their right, and I can understand enforcing the consequences without prejudice lest other employees do the same and then fight the consequences based on precedent.

It is also my right to work for them or not assuming they would hire me in the first place.

I would not like to work in a place in which the employees had no means of self defense and were under orders not to use any means of self defense against robbers. Most especially if the place was open all hours and had liquor, cigarettes, and hard drugs for sale on premises.

I tend to agree. Walgreens has the right to institute any policy they see fit, no matter how stupid. I do think I would sue, not for improper discharge, but for deficient security protocol. If they are going to deny me my right to protect myself, they damned sure better make sure I never need to.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Before firing, Hoven first tried dialing 911. But before he could complete the call, the first of the two robbers had vaulted over a counter and was standing five feet away from him. That's when the pharmacist went for his own gun and opened fire.
Pharmacist Fires Back at Gunmen, Fired By Walgreens Watch Video

The video appears to confirm that Hoven's actions were defensive, and were made only in response to the robbers' attack.

Peter Kosick of St. Joseph, Hoven's attorney, tells ABC News that, in his opinion, Walgreens should have commended his client for bravery. That, too, is the opinion of township police Lt. Delman Lange, who, after reviewing the surveillance video, told the local paper, "If it was me, I would have done the same thing."

Though Hoven was licensed by the state of Michigan to carry a gun, Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols. A spokeswoman for the drug chain told ABC News in an email that while Walgreens would not be able to disclose its policies, they were written to protect the safety of customers and employees. "Store employees receive comprehensive training on our robbery procedures and how to react and respond," she wrote. Walgreens' approach is "endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects. Compromise is safer."

Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers - ABC News

Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, two FOX News analysts say he has a case. Although, I sympathize with the pharmacist, I just don't see him winning. Walgreens had specified what their policy was on guns. Does anyone have more insight into this?

Every store I have ever worked for had a policy that the employee should not resist a robbery. If Walgreens does he violated store policy, and that is grounds for termination.

 

[Foxfyre]

In my opinion the Pharmacist has no case. He knew the company policy and, right or wrong, he agreed to that policy when he took the job.

Where Walgreens is wrong, I think, is that they won't make an exception in this case and won't rethink their policy. But that is their right, and I can understand enforcing the consequences without prejudice lest other employees do the same and then fight the consequences based on precedent.

It is also my right to work for them or not assuming they would hire me in the first place.

I would not like to work in a place in which the employees had no means of self defense and were under orders not to use any means of self defense against robbers. Most especially if the place was open all hours and had liquor, cigarettes, and hard drugs for sale on premises.

I tend to agree. Walgreens has the right to institute any policy they see fit, no matter how stupid. I do think I would sue, not for improper discharge, but for deficient security protocol. If they are going to deny me my right to protect myself, they damned sure better make sure I never need to.

This is a gray area for me though. As long as the employees are aware of the risk--and the instruction not to resist is sufficient warning that the risk exists--I don't think the store necessarily has a legal obligation to provide security. A moral obligation would be the subject of a different debate.

I fully understand the 'don't resist' policy in the work place as usually the most prudent policy. But I think there needs to be some pretty intense training for employees who are at higher risk in their work place. That would include Walgreen's employees, liquor store employees, gas stations, convenience stores, satellite banks, etc. that are frequent targets for armed robberies. Generally the best policy is to give them what they demand and don't provoke anybody.

But sooner or later you run into those situations that it becomes obvious the robbers intend to leave no witnesses or intend to do mayhem. At such a time, I would want the right to do ANYTHING necessary to protect myself and/or my coworkers or customers in the store. I think some employees should have access to weapons and the training in how and when to use them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Update:
"To put things into context, that wasn’t the first attempted robbery at that particular Walgreens location. After a 2007 armed robbery, Hoven attempted to get Walgreens officials to install a panic button and other preventative security measures. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that Walgreens neglected to do this. As a result, Hoven created his own security measures by applying and receiving a concealed weapons permit.

Hoven is now suing Walgreens for wrongful termination.

To fire a man for protecting both his life and the store’s products is downright inexcusable. Walgreens is trying to make an awfully stubborn statement that does nothing more than make the company look utterly ungrateful for their brave and courageous ex-employee. What happened to his second amendment right to bear arms?

Hoven deserves to win his court case against Walgreens. He stood up and exercised his legal right to self-defense. It won’t be a surprise to see Walgreens settle this case out of court. What jury wouldn’t side with Hoven over this? It will be interesting to see how Walgreens handles the suit and if they remove this “no escalation” policy. "

Arizona Daily Wildcat :: Walgreens wrongly fired an employee for using his second amendment right

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Update:
"To put things into context, that wasn’t the first attempted robbery at that particular Walgreens location. After a 2007 armed robbery, Hoven attempted to get Walgreens officials to install a panic button and other preventative security measures. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that Walgreens neglected to do this. As a result, Hoven created his own security measures by applying and receiving a concealed weapons permit.

Hoven is now suing Walgreens for wrongful termination.

To fire a man for protecting both his life and the store’s products is downright inexcusable. Walgreens is trying to make an awfully stubborn statement that does nothing more than make the company look utterly ungrateful for their brave and courageous ex-employee. What happened to his second amendment right to bear arms?

Hoven deserves to win his court case against Walgreens. He stood up and exercised his legal right to self-defense. It won’t be a surprise to see Walgreens settle this case out of court. What jury wouldn’t side with Hoven over this? It will be interesting to see how Walgreens handles the suit and if they remove this “no escalation” policy. "

Arizona Daily Wildcat :: Walgreens wrongly fired an employee for using his second amendment right

I totally agree with what the pharmacist did, however I also agree walgreens is within its rights to terminate him due to the company's policies.

I'm glad I am not on the jury...those jurors would hate me (if it goes to a jury trial that is)

 

[martybegan]

Update:
"To put things into context, that wasn’t the first attempted robbery at that particular Walgreens location. After a 2007 armed robbery, Hoven attempted to get Walgreens officials to install a panic button and other preventative security measures. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to find that Walgreens neglected to do this. As a result, Hoven created his own security measures by applying and receiving a concealed weapons permit.

Hoven is now suing Walgreens for wrongful termination.

To fire a man for protecting both his life and the store’s products is downright inexcusable. Walgreens is trying to make an awfully stubborn statement that does nothing more than make the company look utterly ungrateful for their brave and courageous ex-employee. What happened to his second amendment right to bear arms?

Hoven deserves to win his court case against Walgreens. He stood up and exercised his legal right to self-defense. It won’t be a surprise to see Walgreens settle this case out of court. What jury wouldn’t side with Hoven over this? It will be interesting to see how Walgreens handles the suit and if they remove this “no escalation” policy. "

Arizona Daily Wildcat :: Walgreens wrongly fired an employee for using his second amendment right

I totally agree with what the pharmacist did, however I also agree walgreens is within its rights to terminate him due to the company's policies.

I'm glad I am not on the jury...those jurors would hate me (if it goes to a jury trial that is)

The prior request for improved safety equipment makes this far more interesting. Now you have walgreens ignoring a defined safety risk. He may not be able to get his job back, but he may be able to sue for the "trauma" of going through another robbery after he sent in request for improved equipment for his job.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Walgreen's "Robber friendly' policy is part of the company's marketing program. They want to provide as little inhibition to the most neurotic possible customer out there as they can, enticing as many people as possible to avail themselves of Walgreen's services.. The consequence is an open invitation, come one, come all, for the most aggressive to have their way with Walgreens and its employees at their leisure, a sort of mirror image of the current Nanny State's wishes for you, the citizen, to turn your guns in and leave the protecting to us, the Government.
The Walgreens firearms prohibition most likely even extends to your own personal vehicle that you use to transport yourself to and from work, if you park the vehicle on company property, you may not have any firearms in it. Should you awaken in the middle of the night and find an intruder in your bedroom assaulting your wife, reach for your weapon at ready at your bedside, shoot and kill the intruder, and if the intruder resembled the store's customer base, you'd likely find yourself out of a job as well. That's why the current hiring trend in the Chain Drugstore industry is oriented toward preferentially hiring females, they want to provide as passive, accomodating, and as friendly an outward face as possible to the community. Shooting anyone, either in your public duties, or private life doesn't fit well with Walgreens marketing philosophy. They want to hire Emanuella or Heidi Fleiss for behind the counter, not Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or John Basilone. You work at Walgreens at Corky's pleasure.

 

[Sarah G]

Before firing, Hoven first tried dialing 911. But before he could complete the call, the first of the two robbers had vaulted over a counter and was standing five feet away from him. That's when the pharmacist went for his own gun and opened fire.
Pharmacist Fires Back at Gunmen, Fired By Walgreens Watch Video

The video appears to confirm that Hoven's actions were defensive, and were made only in response to the robbers' attack.

Peter Kosick of St. Joseph, Hoven's attorney, tells ABC News that, in his opinion, Walgreens should have commended his client for bravery. That, too, is the opinion of township police Lt. Delman Lange, who, after reviewing the surveillance video, told the local paper, "If it was me, I would have done the same thing."

Though Hoven was licensed by the state of Michigan to carry a gun, Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols. A spokeswoman for the drug chain told ABC News in an email that while Walgreens would not be able to disclose its policies, they were written to protect the safety of customers and employees. "Store employees receive comprehensive training on our robbery procedures and how to react and respond," she wrote. Walgreens' approach is "endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects. Compromise is safer."

Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers - ABC News

Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, two FOX News analysts say he has a case. Although, I sympathize with the pharmacist, I just don't see him winning. Walgreens had specified what their policy was on guns. Does anyone have more insight into this?

This is a stupid question even for you PoliticalChic. Suuurrree, take a gun to work and even open fire.

Seek help.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before firing, Hoven first tried dialing 911. But before he could complete the call, the first of the two robbers had vaulted over a counter and was standing five feet away from him. That's when the pharmacist went for his own gun and opened fire.
Pharmacist Fires Back at Gunmen, Fired By Walgreens Watch Video

The video appears to confirm that Hoven's actions were defensive, and were made only in response to the robbers' attack.

Peter Kosick of St. Joseph, Hoven's attorney, tells ABC News that, in his opinion, Walgreens should have commended his client for bravery. That, too, is the opinion of township police Lt. Delman Lange, who, after reviewing the surveillance video, told the local paper, "If it was me, I would have done the same thing."

Though Hoven was licensed by the state of Michigan to carry a gun, Walgreen discourages its pharmacists from packing pistols. A spokeswoman for the drug chain told ABC News in an email that while Walgreens would not be able to disclose its policies, they were written to protect the safety of customers and employees. "Store employees receive comprehensive training on our robbery procedures and how to react and respond," she wrote. Walgreens' approach is "endorsed by law enforcement, which strongly advises against confrontation of crime suspects. Compromise is safer."

Michigan Walgreens Pharmacist Jeremy Hoven Fired After Shooting at Robbers - ABC News

Lis Wiehl and Kimberly Guilfoyle, two FOX News analysts say he has a case. Although, I sympathize with the pharmacist, I just don't see him winning. Walgreens had specified what their policy was on guns. Does anyone have more insight into this?

This is a stupid question even for you PoliticalChic. Suuurrree, take a gun to work and even open fire.

Seek help.

I'm astounded at the degree of consistency in your posts!

Having that Left-wing coating that makes one impervious to either learning or experience, I know that the following will change you not a whit!

And, in your case, half-wit.

I will still provide an essay that I found interestng and well thought-out.

'Thought-out:' another aspect of life with which you are unfamiliar.

Why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Posted by Marko at 7:06 AM
why the gun is civilization. « the munchkin wrangler.


I guess it would be easier for you if you know what "fallacious" meant, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Walgreen's "Robber friendly' policy is part of the company's marketing program. They want to provide as little inhibition to the most neurotic possible customer out there as they can, enticing as many people as possible to avail themselves of Walgreen's services.. The consequence is an open invitation, come one, come all, for the most aggressive to have their way with Walgreens and its employees at their leisure, a sort of mirror image of the current Nanny State's wishes for you, the citizen, to turn your guns in and leave the protecting to us, the Government.
The Walgreens firearms prohibition most likely even extends to your own personal vehicle that you use to transport yourself to and from work, if you park the vehicle on company property, you may not have any firearms in it. Should you awaken in the middle of the night and find an intruder in your bedroom assaulting your wife, reach for your weapon at ready at your bedside, shoot and kill the intruder, and if the intruder resembled the store's customer base, you'd likely find yourself out of a job as well. That's why the current hiring trend in the Chain Drugstore industry is oriented toward preferentially hiring females, they want to provide as passive, accomodating, and as friendly an outward face as possible to the community. Shooting anyone, either in your public duties, or private life doesn't fit well with Walgreens marketing philosophy. They want to hire Emanuella or Heidi Fleiss for behind the counter, not Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett or John Basilone. You work at Walgreens at Corky's pleasure.

You called it: post #51

 

[Dragon]

I would assume that as a private business, Walgreen should be able to set the rules of employment...

...and so I would agree with you.

But:
1. He wasn't asked if he had a concealed carry permit at time of employment.
2. The thieves shot at him prior to his returning fire...no one was injured.
3. Both legal analysts have law degrees and courtroom experience as prosecutors...

So...why do they both believe he wins this case?

None of that has any relevance to whether Walgreens has the right to exclude its pharmacists from coming to work armed. To cite an analogy, if the company also had a requirement that pharmacists not park in the parking space reserved for customers, the fact that the pharmacist was a licensed driver would have no bearing. Concealed carry permits are between the pharmacist and the state; the company's policies are between him and Walgreens; neither has anything to do with the other.

The fact that no one was injured or that the thieves shot first also has no bearing here. There are only two questions that do have a bearing:

A. DID Walgreens in fact have a no-weapon policy that the pharmacist violated?

B. If so, did Walgreens have a right to have that policy?

If the answer to both questions is "yes," then the pharmacist has no case.

 

[Katzndogz]

How long before a surviving family member sues one of these stores with a robber friendly policy when that policy leads to a death.