73

I worked at a bookstore for several months. Everything was going well and I had no problems or issues.

One day I was working the cash register and the manager came in and said he was conducting interviews most of the day in the back. He said not to bother him unless it was an emergency. A man came into the store and told me he was interviewing for a position and I directed him to the back. I later saw him come out of the back and start shopping for books. The next interview came in and I directed him to the back. The first interviewee came up to the register to purchase a lot of books. He bought around $200 worth of books and paid on his credit card. I took the payment and put the company copy of the receipt in the register and closed it. It was at that point he asked for change for $1. I knew the manager was in an interview, but I couldn't open the register. I rang up a sale for $0.01, took his dollar and gave him four quarters. Later the manager came out after his last interview to check on things. I told him what happened, and asked him to void the sale. He had no issues doing this. Then he went back to doing more interviews.

A few hours pass by and he comes out and walks up to me and says he has to fire me. I was shocked and asked why. He said it was for opening the register without a sale. This was against company policy. He also said that my till was short by over $5 multiple times.

As to the first part, I was never told of this policy. If the policy is true, I did technically violate it, but unknowingly. If I knew it was against policy and could get fired for it, I would have never done it. Voiding sales was not common, but not uncommon. You might void a sale after ringing it up, but the customer changes their minds and leaves. There were other reasons to void a sale as well. I was just looking to help a customer out who literally spent over $200 in books. To me this was good customer service.

The second reason is - pardon my French - pure bullshit. In the hundred or so times my drawer was counted, I was off maybe two or three times. And in those two or three times, I was only off by a single coin. I know this as after the end of every shift as a cashier, you take your drawer to the back and count it up yourself and write the total in the log. Then a manager counts it up and writes the total in the log. Then you both sign the log. Therefore I know being over $5 off multiple times is completely false.

I was to shocked to say anything, so I left.

What are my options?

This is in the US.

Belle
  • 3,702
  • 8
  • 23
  • 32

8 Answers8

110

Obviously, the result of one of the interviews was the engagement of your replacement, somebody cheaper perhaps.

There's not much you can do. In the USA, either employer or employee can end an employment instantly for no reason at all.

You could contact your former employer and explain that if he ever tells anyone else that your till was consistently $5.00 short, he will be committing a slander and all his logs will be subpoenaed. Furthermore (thanx Anoplexian) he would be documenting the fact that he didn't fire you for no reason, but for a fabricated reason. This constitutes a wrongful termination.

So you could (1) do nothing and move on, (2) threaten to file suit for slander and wrongful termination, or (3) actually file such a suit.

Practically, though, a lawsuit for wrongful termination (that does not involve oppressing a member of a protected class) is a nuisance to bring and difficult to win. You don't really want to try to get a reference from this jerk. It's probably best to just move on.

A. I. Breveleri
  • 19,293
  • 9
  • 37
  • 63
  • 40
    I think the important thing for OP in this is that both reasons (policy, and being short) are cheap, totally made up stories to give the firing some apparent justification, because the boss didn't have any better reasons (apart from personal gain). OP didn't actually do anything wrong. – ig-dev Dec 02 '19 at 07:02
  • 38
    "There's not much you can do. In the USA, either employer or employee can end an employment instantly for no reason at all." AFAIK, this is not universally true, it varies considerably by state. – RBarryYoung Dec 02 '19 at 15:55
  • 1
    Adding to this, it's likely that the manager is very bad at confrontation/conflict, and reached for some dumb excuse to validate (or hide the true reason of) his (legal but unfortunate) decision to fire you. Seeing you do something unorthodox, he thought "oh, cool, I'll use that to start the conversation". – Mirror318 Dec 02 '19 at 16:02
  • 6
    Please note, according to some sources, it is unlawful if the justification given is fabricated (breach of good faith). IANAL, but if there's no jusitification to the shorted drawers, there may be a case for unlawful termination even in an at-will state. Again though, IANAL, so contact a lawyer to see if you have a case. A settlement for "resignation and some unemployment" may be better on your future outlook as well... – Anoplexian Dec 02 '19 at 16:46
  • 18
    I'm shocked there's so little (basically no) employee protection in the US. – henning Dec 02 '19 at 18:46
  • 1
    It should also be noted that unless the OP finds a lawyer willing to do the whole case for free, going to legal route is almost certainly ill-advised. – eps Dec 02 '19 at 18:50
  • 35
    keep in mind, that in some jurisdictions, if employee is fired without cause (or laid off), they are eligible to collect unemployment compensation. But if they are fired with cause (stealing money, breaking company policy, etc) then you don't get unemployment compensation. It's worth a discussion with them to try to keep them from fighting any unemployment benefits you apply for – Brandon Dec 02 '19 at 19:05
  • 1
    Serious question: Could subpoenaing the logs be productive? I mean, if the employer was willing to fake information for a relatively minor convenience, wouldn't they just again fake the information to avoid legal consequences? – Nat Dec 02 '19 at 22:27
  • @Nat Then the employer would be faking OP's signature. Still needs evidence again, but would lead to even more issues... – Mars Dec 03 '19 at 00:38
  • Won't telling you up front you're going to subpoena logs (which are probably already ill-archived) heavily increase the risk of the logs being altered/lost? I wouldn't do it like this. – Mast Dec 03 '19 at 10:52
  • 1
    @Brandon is right -- this is about OP not being able to claim unemployment compensation, which would make the company's insurance premiums go up. I'd claim nonetheless, and if the company disputes this, that would be the moment to bring up the logs. – Simon Richter Dec 03 '19 at 13:13
  • 2
    @Mast: Correct. If you're going to file a suit, you engage a lawyer, file the case, then simultaneously subpoena the respondent and the logs. At this point -- not before -- it becomes illegal for the respondent to alter, destroy, or hide the logs, and the penalties are serious. – A. I. Breveleri Dec 03 '19 at 14:00
  • 1
    @henning--reinstateMonica It's because of freedom! (Yay!) Unfortunately, not everybody can be free at the same time (duh) and it's the employers who get the benefits in this case. – Lightness Races in Orbit Dec 03 '19 at 14:10
  • @henning--reinstateMonica Unfortunately there's not much protection for employers either. A close friend and former neighbor who was also a small business owner was sued for wrongful termination and had to settle in spite of the fact that the employee in question was stealing and there was video evidence (building security camera footage) showing the employee removing company property from the office. – David Dec 03 '19 at 14:48
  • 1
    @David, there's clearly more to the story than that, although it's probably beyond the scope of the comments thread. Every man and his dog has a friend who something happened to, but when you dig into it, there's a crucial detail missing. Irrefutable evidence of theft would be an iron-clad defense against a claim of wrongful termination. Settling this case must have been for some other reason. – Dancrumb Dec 03 '19 at 15:33
  • @Dancrumb The reason was the plaintiff's lawyers already had time (money) invested. The settlement was just their legal fees -- no money to the plaintiff -- but even so it was close to USD 10k as I recall. So the "other reason" was that it was cheaper to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees than it would have been to continue with the court case -- in spite of the fact that the plaintiff would almost certainly have lost. – David Dec 03 '19 at 17:50
  • 1
    @henning--reinstateMonica - the (apparent) lack of employee protections is very easy to sensationalize and doesn't reflect the truth of the law or typical outcomes IME. – dwizum Dec 03 '19 at 19:19
44

One thing that hasn't been addressed in other answers is that in the US, employers often try to attach a 'cause' for termination in order to not have to pay unemployment. If an employee is terminated without cause (e.g. laid off), the employer will be responsible for paying their part of unemployment payments to the employee.

Unfortunately, many times the 'cause' is not true or valid. But, to fight this type of thing takes a great deal of time and possibly money. And the employee doesn't often win, especially if they are fighting corporate lawyers.

I think moving on to something better is your best course of action.

Cindy
  • 1,435
  • 2
  • 11
  • 15
  • 1
    I'd like to see a citation for the fact that employers pay more for non-cause firings? – Daniel R. Collins Dec 02 '19 at 16:33
  • 13
    I've heard of that, and the OP should file for unemployment anyway. I think (but don't know) it will force the employer to either pay the unemployment or actually prove their allegations. – thursdaysgeek Dec 02 '19 at 17:14
  • 1
    @DanielR.Collins they definitely pay more when someone claims unemployment. I don't have a source, but I've heard HR departments talking about it. – Kat Dec 02 '19 at 18:26
  • @DanielR.Collins My answer is based on experience in that field. One of the reasons it costs more for non-cause terminations is that, when an employee is let go without cause, most often their claim for benefits will be granted. If the company carries unemployment insurance (most do) the claim is paid in part by the insurance company and a portion is paid by the company. If an employee is fired with cause, their claim may not be granted. If it is, the company can fight it. Additionally the more claims a company has, the more unemployment insurance costs them. – Cindy Dec 02 '19 at 19:28
  • 3
    Employers have differing tax rates / brackets for unemployment insurance that factor in the number of claims received / paid. Increased numbers of users claiming unemployment (Which you are technically only able to do if fired without actionable cause) raises the bracket that they're in, which can vary by state. This webpage provides a good explanation: https://www.unemployment-services.com/unemployment-claim-cost-employer/ – schizoid04 Dec 02 '19 at 20:18
  • @DanielR.Collins employers pay more for a non-cause firing for two reasons. First, the employer pays a share of unemployment payouts. People fired for cause aren't eligible for unemployment, so people fired for non-cause mean the employer must pay its share of unemployment payouts. Second, they also pay legal costs to show up in unemployment court and defend their decision to fire... They must prove the firing was bona-fide and not done on a pretense (as is actually the case here). Because it's the oldest trick in the book! – Harper - Reinstate Monica Dec 02 '19 at 23:47
  • 1
    Let me be clear: I'm not looking for personal education via comments. I suggest that this answer will be improved by editing and including a citation for its claims (perhaps the UIS link above is sufficient, if Cindy thinks it is correct). – Daniel R. Collins Dec 03 '19 at 00:36
  • I believe this answer could be improved by 1) adding a caveat that the 'cause' can vary by state; in my state a 'cause' of mere incompetence is not enough to disqualify for unemployment, though violating company policy is enough. 2) OP should go ahead and apply for unemployment, and consider filing appeal if and when it is denied. That would force the employer to attest to their b.s. in court proceedings. Hopefully the employer will fold like a wet newspaper, but if not, they will be on the record with their BS, giving OP ammunition should they decide to sue for slander or libel. – stannius Dec 03 '19 at 18:36
27

What do you think I should do?

Assuming you worked in an at-will employment state, there are very few things you can do.

If this bookstore is part of a chain, you could appeal to the HR department. You could explain your situation, what happened, and the circumstances involved. It's possible, if unlikely, that they could intervene on your behalf.

But while it's unfortunate, there is no law in your jurisdiction preventing your employer from firing you for any reason that isn't illegal (such as due to race, religion, etc), or for no reason at all. The reasons given may make no sense, be unfair, or be completely made up - it won't matter legally.

Most likely you'll just need to find your next job and put this one behind you.

Strawberry
  • 123
  • 2
  • 7
Joe Strazzere
  • 382,456
  • 185
  • 1,077
  • 1,492
3

Every logic on this tread is moot. The reason is that you are in the USA, and most places are at-will. That means they could fire you if they didn't like the shoe laces you wore. Unfortunately all you can do is simply find a new job and move on.

My thoughts: your boss hired a new person and had to get rid of you and saw a perfect opportunity. Or maybe he was having a bad day of interviews and took it out on you.

Dan
  • 21,133
  • 4
  • 33
  • 71
2

If your employment was in an "at will" jurisdiction, there won't be much you can do.

Even in jurisdictions that are not "at will", the burden of proof is typically on the employee -- that is, you are guilty unless you prove yourself innocent.
As others have pointed out, it's generally regarded as your responsibility to know the business policies. But businesses typically have you sign a form saying that you've read the employee handbook and agree to be bound by it. If you are one hundred per cent certain that you never signed such a form, then you may have a leg to stand on, especially if the till records are still available and bear out your claim that you were never anywhere near $5 short.

If your employment was not in an at-will jurisdiction, and you're sure you were never asked to sign a "receipt" for the company policy handbook, and you know that the register logs are typically retained for at least a few months, and this is a medium to large chain -- i.e. there is a corporate HR department somewhere -- you could conceivably approach the corporate HR people and lodge a complaint about wrongful termination. But what would you be looking to achieve? Even if they reinstate you, you'd be back (presumably) working under the same manager; as others have pointed out, that would be awkward at best.
The same goes for legal action i.e. suing the company for wrongful termination; and the legal action would likely be expensive.

Now if you can find a lawyer who thinks you are entitled to punitive damages, and that your case is so strong that they are willing to take it on a contingency basis ... then legal action might be a practical option.
But it is a "nuclear" option, and might affect your hireability in the future, especially if this turns into a high-profile case. I would only think about considering this options if you were terminated for "cause" -- i.e. you would not be eligible for unemployment benefits -- and the reasons are false.

As other posters have suggested, your best bet is probably to move on ... especially if you can collect unemployment compensation while you're looking for another position.

David
  • 515
  • 5
  • 11
0

My condolences for your misfortune.

What do you think I should do?

  • Treat it as a life lesson and move on. Make sure when you're employed next time you re-confirm every single thing which could impact your job. Such as what you should do and shouldn't and have it in printed copy for both of you.
  • If you have any evidence of the manager's wrongdoing you could try to bring it to court.
Mukyuu
  • 418
  • 4
  • 12
  • 11
    "Make sure when you're employed next time you re-confirm every single thing which could impact your job." That in itself is probably career-limiting advice, frankly. Employers often like people who can take initiative and work independently. – yshavit Dec 02 '19 at 16:21
  • 3
    @yshavit - oh yes, just like the OP did. – Tim Dec 02 '19 at 16:36
  • 3
    While I understand the intent, confirming "every single thing" is a bit extreme. Most people work on good faith. This is seemingly an example of where the boss did not and made up a reason to fire someone instead of giving the real reason. – CramerTV Dec 02 '19 at 17:02
  • 1
    "Make sure when you're employed next time you re-confirm every single thing which could impact your job." Impossible to do: Bosses can be arbitrary or even dishonest. Policies can change in an instant. If the hiring boss leaves, a new boss could change things, including just wanting to "bring in their own people". – GreenMatt Dec 02 '19 at 19:39
  • 1
    I'm unsure why this is downvoted. Unfortunately at-will workers in the USA suffer from a bad boss and there's nothing you can do other than move on. – Dan Dec 03 '19 at 19:07
  • 2
    @Dan apparently, speaking the truth is unpopular – Old_Lamplighter Dec 03 '19 at 22:15
0

What you should do? Find a new job.

You admit yourself that your till was short on few occasions, and that you did indeed open the till without a sale so that's all the cause needed to fire you. Not knowing the policy is not a defense. In all likelihood is there to serve as exactly that, provision of cause for terminating people, but that's how it is with most employment contacts.

And you likely were a goner for a while, or at least threading very close to it, so there must have been some reasons why the company wanted you gone. And one they've found a replacement they just pulled the trigger. What is the core cause (assuming it's not the short till) you will never find out.

So gotta move on and take a lesson from it that this is what happens in workforce and hope that next one will be better.

Aida Paul
  • 35,116
  • 15
  • 91
  • 128
  • 10
    In this case not knowing about the policy is a defense. If the OP did not get the training at start or didn’t receive an employee handbook where such a policy is clearly stated how should they be liable for breaking it. – Zefiryn Dec 02 '19 at 10:03
  • 2
    @Zefiryn OP didn't say that it was never mentioned, just that he didn't know. Good luck proving that somewhere between being told that you cannot open the till without a sale, and him ringing up 0.01$ sale to get the change he didn't know that, well, it shouldn't be opened without a sale present. – Aida Paul Dec 02 '19 at 12:40
  • 1
    Could the first man be a plant, specifically to give a reason to fire the OP? – Aron Dec 02 '19 at 14:21
  • 1
    @Aron why does it matter if it's a secret shopper or not? It's just wild theory-crafting, and I am very sure that the main reason for unhappiness was the short till, or something that OP doesn't share with us. Either way, we won't know, and it doesn't really matter, as OP admits himself to doing it before. – Aida Paul Dec 02 '19 at 14:23
  • @Aron Why in the world would someone go through that trouble, the employer could almost certainly fire the OP for any reason whatsoever. Yes, there are exceptions to at-will employment but there's extremely little chance they apply to the OP. – eps Dec 02 '19 at 18:47
  • 1
    Why are you so bent on accusing the OP? Also, you totally (seem to) miss the context of his actions and isolate them so that they sound criminal. – Helen Dec 03 '19 at 15:22
  • Also, the secret shopper theory is not wild at all: he was supposedly interviewed for a job, and right after the interview what does he do? he just goes and spends 200 on the company that just interviewed him? – Helen Dec 03 '19 at 15:23
  • @Helen pretty sure so far you are the one doing any accusing, maybe re-read the CoC at some point. And it's not wild idea of secret shoppers, what's wild is that it matters. A secret shopper is not police entrapping someone into buying illegal drugs, it's quality control in retail sector. – Aida Paul Dec 03 '19 at 15:26
  • 1
    Strawman argument. I replied to you calling Aron's comment "wild theory-crafting", but you are replying now that the secret shoppers are not a wild idea, i.e. you are replying to something else. As about accusing the OP, I quote from your answer:"You admit yourself that your till was short", "you did indeed open the till", "you likely were a goner", "there must have been some reasons why the company wanted you gone", "take a lesson from it that this is what happens". I think that your answer assumes that the original question was full of lies. (And no, this is not the same as a reality check.) – Helen Dec 03 '19 at 15:38
  • @Helen Quoting what OP literally said that he did is hardly accusing, it's stating what OP has admitted to. Also comments are not for extensive arguments, which is what you seem to be seeking, and do so under multiple answers here. Feel free to provide your own answer, thanks. – Aida Paul Dec 03 '19 at 15:40
-1

From a security standpoint, opening the till without a sale is a HUGE RED FLAG and is therefore almost universal in retail that a till is never opened without a sale.

To give you an example, one place where I worked had a policy in place where the ONLY time this was acceptable was after a robbery and ringing up "no sale".

Employee theft is a massive concern in retail, and because of that, policies regarding till balances and opening the till without a sale can be harsh to the extreme.

What you should know, going forward, is that while a till being over or under is often ignored, it is being monitored. What did you in was the opening the till without a sale. You combine that with your till being off, it looks like you've been skimming, and you will be fired, as you found out.

Also, it's up to you to know the policy. Even if you violated it unknowingly, you still violated it, and it's a policy that is pretty high up on the list of no-nos in retail. The reason for it ranges from "sweetheart sales", "Quick change"scams, and employee theft.

You were fired for opening the register without the sale, and the till shortages were used to establish a pattern.

Pretty standard for the industry, and neither reason is false.

Old_Lamplighter
  • 159,693
  • 108
  • 436
  • 585