|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,643
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,643 |
J/c This isn't the only wrongful termination lawsuit that walgreena has right now: web page I'd copy/paste the article but I'm still learning how to do things on this iPad thing.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,744 |
No uncommon... I was assigned a false imprisonment interpretation paper of the 4 cases I read 3 involved Wal-Mart.
Generally you see the same companies in similar lawsuits because 1) They have a large number of employees and most importantly 2) Very deep pockets
Go Browns!!![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/BrowniePoints/AndersonSnowPic.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,210 |
Quote:
I'd copy/paste the article but I'm still learning how to do things on this iPad thing.
Here ya go
Back in May, Walgreens pharmacist Jeremy Hoven was working the graveyard shift at the Benton Harbor, Michigan store with three other employees when two masked gunmen ran into the store and attempted a stick-up. As Hoven was dialing 911, one of the gunmen hopped the counter, aimed his piece at him, and, according to Hoven, began "jerking the gun's trigger."
As it turned out, Hoven was packing himself, having procured a concealed-weapon permit after the same store was robbed when he was working there in 2007. So he blasted off several shots, and the failed drugstore cowboys vamoosed right quick.
You would think the company would applaud Hoven for protecting the contents of the cash register, but no. For his troubles, Hoven was terminated a week later for violating Walgreens' "non-escalation policy," as well as company policy that forbids employees from carrying weapons at work.
So now Hoven is suing Walgreens for wrongful termination, arguing that, among other things, his constitutional right to bear arms is being violated. And why should he be a defenseless sitting duck when robbers point weapons at him while he's trying to make an honest living? Argued Walgreens spokeswoman Tiffani Washington, "Our policies in this area are created to maintain maximum safety for our customers and employees. Our employees receive very comprehensive training on what to do in the event of this kind of situation... Compliance is safer than confrontation."
It's a tricky situation. Suppose Hoven hadn't had a gun that night and had been shot dead. Does that mean Walgreens would have honored him for obeying company policy by picking up the costs of his funeral? I know I personally would rather be alive and unemployed, than a dead Walgreens martyr. As Hoven's attorney, Dan Swanson, put it, "Companies that do not allow employees to defend themselves put the employee in a position of simply submitting, possibly being killed or if they react in self-defense, being fired. That's a Hobson's Choice that no employee should be placed in."
In their official response to the lawsuit, Walgreens lawyers actually tried to deny that there was even an armed robbery in progress. Judging by the video which Hoven's attorneys released in response, the Walgreens lawyers may have to rethink that argument.
After reading this article the guy has no leg to stand on. If the company has a "no escalation" policy as well a policy forbidding employees bringing weapons to work, there is no wrongful termination lawsuit. Also, because Walgreen's is a private company there is absolutely no 2nd amendment violation.
LIbertatem Defendimus!!
2010 Dawgtalkers NCAA Bracket Challenge Champ!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,150 |
This quote really bothers me: Quote:
Our employees receive very comprehensive training on what to do in the event of this kind of situation... Compliance is safer than confrontation."
How does she know it's safer? How much safer? There are no studies comparing the two. Is it in fact safer if the victim has a firearm and is trained in it's use?
That said, the employee is responsible for knowing his company's policy on concealed carry and should follow the rules if he chooses to work there. The time to contest the 2nd ammendment implications of the policy is before something like this happens. You can't choose to violate it and then contest it after you're caught.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 17,850 |
I think when she says safer she really means for the company on a whole. The absolute last thing that Walgreen's wants is for a shootout between employees and robbers in the store and end up with innocent bystanders getting shot.
As you mentioned, the employee has no leg to stand on here though if the store is a constant target, the company could have had some liability for an unsafe work environment (had the employee not violated the terms of their employment).
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,088 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,437
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,437 |
Quote:
This quote really bothers me:
Quote:
Our employees receive very comprehensive training on what to do in the event of this kind of situation... Compliance is safer than confrontation."
How does she know it's safer? How much safer? There are no studies comparing the two. Is it in fact safer if the victim has a firearm and is trained in it's use?
That said, the employee is responsible for knowing his company's policy on concealed carry and should follow the rules if he chooses to work there. The time to contest the 2nd ammendment implications of the policy is before something like this happens. You can't choose to violate it and then contest it after you're caught.
Those policies are conistent in all retail companies. The company stands to lose much more in liability if they condone employees reacting to potential theives. It is very simple, if you react to a potential robber aggresively, you will get terminated. You sign an employee agreement that staes you understand this.
If he was fearful and felt like he needed a gun for protection because of that fear, he should have found another job. Policy is policy. Violate it and you could be terminated.
“It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.” -Steve Jobs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
This quote really bothers me:
Quote:
Our employees receive very comprehensive training on what to do in the event of this kind of situation... Compliance is safer than confrontation."
How does she know it's safer? How much safer? There are no studies comparing the two. Is it in fact safer if the victim has a firearm and is trained in it's use?
That said, the employee is responsible for knowing his company's policy on concealed carry and should follow the rules if he chooses to work there. The time to contest the 2nd ammendment implications of the policy is before something like this happens. You can't choose to violate it and then contest it after you're caught.
Those policies are conistent in all retail companies. The company stands to lose much more in liability if they condone employees reacting to potential theives. It is very simple, if you react to a potential robber aggresively, you will get terminated. You sign an employee agreement that staes you understand this.
If he was fearful and felt like he needed a gun for protection because of that fear, he should have found another job. Policy is policy. Violate it and you could be terminated.
Your last 2 sentences. I quoted your whole post - but the last 2 are what I want to focus on.
Policy is policy. Violate it, and you could be terminated.
Apparently that only applies in some situations?
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Diabetic sues Walgreens for firing
her over a "stolen" bag of chips
|
|
