AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

[nebula]

AutoZone Fires Worker Who Stopped Robbery

Dec 4, 2012

By Todd Starnes

An AutoZone worker who stopped an armed robbery by retrieving a weapon from his truck said he was fired by the company for violating their gun policy.

Read more here

[JustinM]

Looks like I will be shopping NAPA, O'Reilly, or Advanced Auto Parts, from here on out.

[ayin jade]

I can understand the companys point of view. In arizona, there have been workers killed while trying to stop shoplifters. Also consider the liability of the company for that employee who took shots. What if he had killed an innocent bystander? Especially a child? There is a reason companies have those policies in place.

[Guest shiloh357]

The company needs to change their decision. He was the legal and licensed owner of the weapon and he didn't come in guns ablazing. He saved his manager's life and saved the company money. When the company made this policy, they did not anticipate this kind of scenario.

The policy was to prevent an employee from showing up to work, packing heat on company property. Lots of companies have that kind of policy. This scenario was completely different than what the policy pertains to.

Sometimes policies can be held too rigidly as to faile to account for mitigating circumstances. No policy can be made that can anticipate every possible scenario that can occur. Some lee way needs to be shown in this situation. Heck, they could rehire him as a company security guard if he goes and gets the proper training and certification.

[The_Patriot21]

I can see both sides of the issue here, I really can. Its a tough call, but I think autozone in this case should really consider the intent of the law, and not the letter of the law. On the one hand jade is right it opens the company up to liability issues on the one hand-on the other, its done and over with, and no one got hurt by it, he didnt use unnecessary force, didnt chase after the guy or shoot him after he was no longer a threat. And the thing is, in that case it came out good-but, if they do nothing about it, then, all the sudden, other employees at other stores, get it in their head its ok for them to carry guns, and they may not be as responsible or clear headed with one and the next time could be a disaster. Its a tough call, on the one hand you don't want to punish the employee, but on the other hand, you dont want to turn all your autozones into the O.K. Corral. I still dont think I would have fired him though, in my mind he did the right thing-and if I was the employee I probably wouldve done the same thing-but I do understand the factors involved.

[JustinM]

So promote him and move him to a different location.

[Steve_S]

I can see both sides of the issue here, I really can. Its a tough call, but I think autozone in this case should really consider the intent of the law, and not the letter of the law. On the one hand jade is right it opens the company up to liability issues on the one hand-on the other, its done and over with, and no one got hurt by it, he didnt use unnecessary force, didnt chase after the guy or shoot him after he was no longer a threat. And the thing is, in that case it came out good-but, if they do nothing about it, then, all the sudden, other employees at other stores, get it in their head its ok for them to carry guns, and they may not be as responsible or clear headed with one and the next time could be a disaster. Its a tough call, on the one hand you don't want to punish the employee, but on the other hand, you dont want to turn all your autozones into the O.K. Corral. I still dont think I would have fired him though, in my mind he did the right thing-and if I was the employee I probably wouldve done the same thing-but I do understand the factors involved.

This isn't a typical loss prevention situation. This is someone holding a gun on a coworker. In that situation the farthest thing from the mind of most people should be the store's policy because there's no way to be absolutely positive that after the intruder gets what he wants that he's not going to choose to kill you both. A company policy cannot ask a person to forebear their basic right to self defense in ANY situation and doing so makes them culpable on an entirely different level. This particularly employee should be consulting an attorney and asking a court why AutoZone thinks it has a legal right to force him and his coworkers to acquiesce to someone who has a gun pointed in their direction and is making demands backed by a firearm of his own with a clear and present threat of a deprivation of life. This is a no brainer to me, the personal right of self defense against a legitimate criminal threat to a person's life is in no way superceeded by a corporate policy designed to limit liability. I think he would have a fairly good case in a court that AutoZone as part of its employment contract asks its employees to submit to harm up to and including potential death for the sake of their bottom line and i'm sure he could rake at least a very good settlement out of them if that argument were used effectively.

[The_Patriot21]

I agree steve, I wasnt discussing the situation from the employees point of view, I see him as doing the right thing, Im saying I understand corporates point of view, THAT was what I was saying I understood. I agree with what that guy did, and would likely do the same, and if I lose my job, I lose my job. Im just saying, from the corporations point of view that they are stuck in a tight situation, because it opens them up to potential liability issues, after the fact-because if they reward him for what he did, it leaves open the door that other employees might start carrying guns on them or nearby in idea that in a similar situation they can get a pat on the back-and something might happen with one of them, and create a problem. On the other note, if they discipline the guy in anyway, like fire him which they did-everyone thinks them the bad guy. Its kind of a lose/lose situation for them Im afraid in todays world.

[Steve_S]

I agree steve, I wasnt discussing the situation from the employees point of view, I see him as doing the right thing, Im saying I understand corporates point of view, THAT was what I was saying I understood. I agree with what that guy did, and would likely do the same, and if I lose my job, I lose my job. Im just saying, from the corporations point of view that they are stuck in a tight situation, because it opens them up to potential liability issues, after the fact-because if they reward him for what he did, it leaves open the door that other employees might start carrying guns on them or nearby in idea that in a similar situation they can get a pat on the back-and something might happen with one of them, and create a problem. On the other note, if they discipline the guy in anyway, like fire him which they did-everyone thinks them the bad guy. Its kind of a lose/lose situation for them Im afraid in todays world.

I think there's just as much litigational danger for them with the termination as there is with the other liability. Might as well come out on the proper PR side of it as well.

[Guest shiloh357]

I can see both sides of the issue here, I really can. Its a tough call, but I think autozone in this case should really consider the intent of the law, and not the letter of the law. On the one hand jade is right it opens the company up to liability issues on the one hand-on the other, its done and over with, and no one got hurt by it, he didnt use unnecessary force, didnt chase after the guy or shoot him after he was no longer a threat. And the thing is, in that case it came out good-but, if they do nothing about it, then, all the sudden, other employees at other stores, get it in their head its ok for them to carry guns, and they may not be as responsible or clear headed with one and the next time could be a disaster. Its a tough call, on the one hand you don't want to punish the employee, but on the other hand, you dont want to turn all your autozones into the O.K. Corral. I still dont think I would have fired him though, in my mind he did the right thing-and if I was the employee I probably wouldve done the same thing-but I do understand the factors involved.

This isn't a typical loss prevention situation. This is someone holding a gun on a coworker. In that situation the farthest thing from the mind of most people should be the store's policy because there's no way to be absolutely positive that after the intruder gets what he wants that he's not going to choose to kill you both. A company policy cannot ask a person to forebear their basic right to self defense in ANY situation and doing so makes them culpable on an entirely different level. This particularly employee should be consulting an attorney and asking a court why AutoZone thinks it has a legal right to force him and his coworkers to acquiesce to someone who has a gun pointed in their direction and is making demands backed by a firearm of his own with a clear and present threat of a deprivation of life. This is a no brainer to me, the personal right of self defense against a legitimate criminal threat to a person's life is in no way superceeded by a corporate policy designed to limit liability. I think he would have a fairly good case in a court that AutoZone as part of its employment contract asks its employees to submit to harm up to and including potential death for the sake of their bottom line and i'm sure he could rake at least a very good settlement out of them if that argument were used effectively.

Well said.