Firing an employee—especially a longtime employee who seems to be a loyal, hardworking asset to the employer—is never easy. But policies exist for a reason, and when they’re broken tough decisions need to be made.
A recent termination of an employee apparently trying to do the right thing has sparked headlines and illustrates the dilemma HR professionals face when they have a reason for a termination but the firing still looks bad. 
“Stop thief!” Employee helps catch thief, gets fired
In October, a 55-year-old employee of the Lowe’s home improvement store in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, was fired after trying to stop a shoplifter. News accounts report she had worked at the store for 18 years and was fed up with shoplifters. In a television news story, the employee, Karen Sizemore, said, “You just get to the point where you’re so tired of people stealing from you.”
When Sizemore saw a man with a DeWalt tool kit valued at $579 leave without paying, she said she acted on instinct and bolted out the door after him. She tried to grab the tool set out of the man’s car, but was unsuccessful. She did get his license number, however, and he was later arrested.
At first, Sizemore could bask in the admiration of her coworkers, who jokingly called her Rambo, but a few days later she learned that her efforts were against company policy and she was fired.
Local news reports said that a Lowe’s representative said the company has a policy on how employees should handle shoplifters, and the policy is designed with the safety of employees and customers in mind.
The company statement quoted in a news account said, “Our policies are in place for the safety of our workers. We have very specific guidelines when it comes to handling potential shoplifters, to ensure the well-being of not only our team but our customers.”
Explain yourself?
So what should an employer do if policy dictates that an employee be fired even if she means well and the public and possibly even coworkers see the termination as unjust? Is an employer wise to explain the situation or just move on?
John T. Lovett, chair of the labor and employment law practice group at Frost Brown Todd LLC in Louisville, says he’s not familiar with the details of the Lowe’s action, but as a general rule an employer is wise to refrain from explaining the reasons for discipline.
“There is an old political expression: When you are explaining, you are losing,” Lovett says. “In almost every circumstance, I advise against telling other employees, or the public, the reason for a termination or other discipline. Employees become accustomed to hearing ‘We cannot comment on personnel matters.’ If the company consistently takes this position, coworkers often conclude that the company’s actions would make sense if they knew the whole story.”
If coworkers aren’t willing to give the employer the benefit of the doubt, Lovett says, no explanation is likely to satisfy them if they disagree with a personnel decision. “So the employer’s explanation will not make things better, and it may make things worse,” he says.
Social media adds a wrinkle
Social media also enters into the picture. Lovett reminds employers that they have to be careful when employees take to the Internet. The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees when they engage in “concerted activity,” such as discussions of pay and other terms and conditions of employment. Such protected activity extends beyond conversations between employees and can include social media postings.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered a number of social media cases and has issued rulings in favor of employees who were fired or disciplined for speaking out on social media. Other rulings, though, have gone in favor of employers when employee comments didn’t fall under the concerted activity definition. Just when discipline for social media postings can be justified under the NLRA isn’t always clear-cut.
Employers considering defending themselves when discipline hits social media would be wise to think carefully, Lovett says. “Defending personnel actions in response to criticism on social media is often like trying to put out a fire with gasoline,” he says. “It only generates more fuel for employees’ legally protected social media comments.”
I would think that if this lady was a long term staff member with a clean record, perhaps only a warning would have been necessary. Yes, she violated a policy that could have jeopardized her safety. I am in Canada, so we do things a bit different. I know if she were terminated without warning, she could go to Employment Standards who would then investigate the situation. How long ago were staff reminded of such policies? What was her track record? Had she ever been in trouble for similar policy violations before?… I know for a fact, they would say that a warning would have been sufficient, as well as putting employees through a refresher course on such policies, and that it would need to be used as learning tool for staff. Then they would suggest that she get reinstated or the company could get fined $X/year of employment for severance. A warning in a case like this is much easier and cheaper than a lawsuit and fines from the government! Especially in a case like this where the employee is seen as doing ‘good’ for the company!
Agree or disagree…doesn’t matter. IF Lowe’s has a policy and IF the employee was trained on the policy, and IF the company hasn’t abdicated its at-will policy, then the employer absolutely should not discuss the matter publicly nor should it give a reason for the termination. When a reason is given in an at-will termination, the employer’s at-will doctrine is placed in question.
I agree with Tanya’s reply. Tanya addressed mitigating and aggravating factors and also included past discipline, timeliness issues, etc. If the employee was provided the policy years ago in an employee handbook, just cause may not exist for the firing. Employers have an obligation to inform employees of the rules, policies on a continuing basis. For some policies, rules and regulations, the employer has to notify employees on an annual basis. Also, would like to add that when a “reason is given” the at-will doctrine is not placed in question but displaced altogether i.e. it is no longer at will and whatever reason given is subject to challenge.
Sounds to me like they were looking for a reason to get rid of her and their window of opportunity opened when she tried to stop the shoplifter….
Its too bad. It should have been a win-win all the way around; but ended as a loose-loose all way round as it appears the store took a hard-line approach to the training/policy in force, which is fine. Being a safety professional I can see both sides and better to err on the side of keeping employees safely within the confines of the store.