Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi, I have a question and was wondering if anyone out there might have the answer and/or suggestions?
My fiance was recently terminated at a casino for theft. They called him into the office (and on false pretenses, saying that they needed him to work a shift as two people had called in, but in reality, to just sit him down to tell him he was suspended for theft) and said that they have him on camera not dropping in 100 bucks in the toke box (toke box meaning tip box). However, when he asked to see the tape that showed this alleged theft, they refused and said that they were not required to show him anything. I know that in California and Florida, proof of theft is required before termination, and if no proof is given, they cannot terminate and therefore, they must allow the person to return to work.
He was called in for a 'due process' interview the next day, where again, he stated that he did not take the 100 dollars, his hands did not go into his pockets and he wears short sleeves, did not go to the bathroom immediately after dropping the money, and actually stayed a few hours after his shift was over to speak to some friends, plus it was also pay day that day. All of this suggesting that he had no motive for the theft and although HR took his statements, they still refused to show him the tape. Then a few days later, they terminated him for cause of theft. No police report was filed, no management from his department was asked questions either about the 'theft' or his character. The decision was solely based on the director of the department who has only met my fiance once. To say hello.
He is going to do a 'peer council', where he will state his case to his peers (three people that work in his department), and if they decide he is innocent, the decision of the director will be overturned and they said that he will most likely get his job back. However, again, he is technically terminated, but no proof was ever shown him. We will pursue this in a court of law if the decision of the council is against us, but I was wondering if any one knows anything about Nevada employment law where it states that proof of theft MUST be shown or given before termination.
I thank everyone in advance for their much needed help.
Nevada is a "right to work" state. He can be fired for any reason, or no reason. Personally, I wouldn't want to work at a place that didn't trust me, or take my word.
Nevada is an "at will" state. I think California is too, but I'm not familiar with Florida law. People mistakenly refer to that law as "right to work", but the right to work law means you can't be forced to join a union. Anyway, in Nevada you are hired "at will", and (unless you have an actual contract) there is no implied contract, and you can quit a job "at will", or be terminated "at will". Nobody needs a reason to fire anyone. Nobody needs a reason to quit. No notice needs to be given. There is (almost) no such thing as wrongful termination in Nevada. They don't have to prove anything, or even accuse you of anything, to let you go (at least they told him why they were doing it). That is part of the libertarian way of life in Nevada, and lack of government getting into your everyday affairs like other states do is one of the nice things about living in Nevada. Deal with it.
Now, if it were me, and if I didn't do it, I'd call or go on line right away and file for unemployment insurance benefits. The employer will more than likely challenge it, but for him to be denied unemployment by the State, the employer would have to bring out their proof to show he was fired for misconduct. It sounds like maybe they either don't have any proof and were trying to force him to confess to something, or they don't want anyone to see it. But, if he did it, and they have proof, stealing is considered "gross misconduct", and if he files a claim, he will not only lose his benefits for now, but the State will take away any monetary credits he has to base a claim on, and it could possibly be a long time before he could ever collect unemployment. You didn't say how long he worked there.
If he didn't do it, and he is sure they have no proof that would show him doing anything wrong, then he should be OK filing for unemployment. If he actually did it, just drop it and move on would be the best thing you could do. I seriously doubt that you have anything to sue for unless they tell someone that he stole, and it prevents him from getting another job, or slanders him in any way. Especially if there is no proof he did anything wrong.
Yep, and you can be fired for "theft" without proof...because it IS an "at-will employment"...or any other reason they come up with. In fact, they are not required to GIVE you a reason. If they had "proof", the accused would be up on criminal charges in addition to losing the job. I've seen in happen in retail more than once. People terminated for theft and walked out of the store by the police. I've also seen people terminated for theft with no more proof than--"the only days we were short money were days that YOU worked." Couldn't happen to a better guy either.
Yep, and you can be fired for "theft" without proof...because it IS an "at-will employment"...or any other reason they come up with. In fact, they are not required to GIVE you a reason. If they had "proof", the accused would be up on criminal charges in addition to losing the job. I've seen in happen in retail more than once. People terminated for theft and walked out of the store by the police. I've also seen people terminated for theft with no more proof than--"the only days we were short money were days that YOU worked." Couldn't happen to a better guy either.
Bummer. A similar thing happened to me a few years back... I was unlawfully discharged for 'theft' and they interoggated me for about 2 hours trying to get me to confess. The Regional Loss Prevention guy just sat asking me 'what did you take, if you tell me, we may be able to save your job'.
I had NO idea what I 'stole' so I just sat there stammering. He left the room for 20 minutes to give me time to think and I still couldn't come up with anything. I had been there nearly 2 years and the only thing I had ever taken out of the store without paying was a display table that was given to me by the manager when they did a remodel.
He told me that the only time I would see the proof of me stealing (i.e. a video) was in court. The managers escorted me out and no charges were ever pressed. I got my unemployment papers and they didn't even try to fight it, and the reason for my discharge was 'failure to comply with company policy' and nothing more.
I'd say it was a BS move. Do you have new people working there, maybe they think he's a threat?? I think that's what happened to me...
Hi, I have a question and was wondering if anyone out there might have the answer and/or suggestions?
My fiance was recently terminated at a casino for theft. They called him into the office (and on false pretenses, saying that they needed him to work a shift as two people had called in, but in reality, to just sit him down to tell him he was suspended for theft) and said that they have him on camera not dropping in 100 bucks in the toke box (toke box meaning tip box). However, when he asked to see the tape that showed this alleged theft, they refused and said that they were not required to show him anything. I know that in California and Florida, proof of theft is required before termination, and if no proof is given, they cannot terminate and therefore, they must allow the person to return to work.
He was called in for a 'due process' interview the next day, where again, he stated that he did not take the 100 dollars, his hands did not go into his pockets and he wears short sleeves, did not go to the bathroom immediately after dropping the money, and actually stayed a few hours after his shift was over to speak to some friends, plus it was also pay day that day. All of this suggesting that he had no motive for the theft and although HR took his statements, they still refused to show him the tape. Then a few days later, they terminated him for cause of theft. No police report was filed, no management from his department was asked questions either about the 'theft' or his character. The decision was solely based on the director of the department who has only met my fiance once. To say hello.
He is going to do a 'peer council', where he will state his case to his peers (three people that work in his department), and if they decide he is innocent, the decision of the director will be overturned and they said that he will most likely get his job back. However, again, he is technically terminated, but no proof was ever shown him. We will pursue this in a court of law if the decision of the council is against us, but I was wondering if any one knows anything about Nevada employment law where it states that proof of theft MUST be shown or given before termination.
I thank everyone in advance for their much needed help.
I work retail and if I was fired for something I did not do, like in your husbands case, I would sue them. I am sure there must be good grounds for a lawsuit? 2 coworkers of mine lost their jobs for being accused of something they did not due. One of the girls fought it and about a year later she received a check for the entire year of pay that she lost.
I can not believe how this can be legal. How you employer can falsely fire you for stealing! That **** goes on your records? Thats just wrong!
Not if he has no damages. If it's an at-will state then they can fire you for any cause. As long as they don't slander him (or say he stole without irrefutable proof to anyone who calls for a reference) he has no grounds to sue.
Technically, all 50 states are "at-will" states. However, there are a number of exceptions and Nevada is one of them.
Nevada has adopted a "covenant of good faith and fair dealing." It has been interpreted, by some courts, to mean either that employer personnel decisions are subject to a “just cause” standard or that terminations made in bad faith or motivated by malice are prohibited.
I know this because I copied it from wikipedia. You should do a lot more research than that before proceeding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advice is cheap
