Large multinational multi billion dollar retail company.

No policy in place to deter external theft.  

External theft is constant, during business hours with employees and customers present.

Thefts have escalated into assaults on employees and customers.

Company does not allow employees to contact LE for theft, only the corporate asset protection dept.  When reporting to said dept, no description of thieves that could be used to identify race or gender is allowed.

The companies return/exchange policy allows stolen goods to eventually be exchanged and then in some cases returned for currency or credit on a card.  This is fluid and location dependent, some stores abide the more strict written policy and some don't.

Interfering or interacting with thieves can and has lead to immediate firing.

Seeing the impact this has on employees, IIED could probably be proven.  A case could certainly be filed for it with the right attorney and right judge.  

If an employee is physically harmed by a criminal under these policies how exposed would the company be to civil action?

@Aimless

It would seem that the parts about not being allowed to call the police or identify the thief, and anything (other than that) they are doing to invite ongoing theft (lack of security measures in locations where theft and attacks on employees are known issues) would be grounds for a suit.

Not allowing employees to intervene in a theft is sop at most companies. I don’t know why an employee would want to get involved with that. It’s not your business, store, or merchandise.

Time sure have changed. In 1982 I was working at a supermarket. We caught some guy stealing meat and chased him out the store. When we caught him and had him on the ground my manager kicked him in the head about 4-5 times. I still laugh about that.

I worked in a grocery store from 1980 to 1987 in high school and college.  My hometown was going through a demographic change and it was getting worse every year.  We had numerous robberies and shoplifting so there was always good chance of getting in a fist fight stopping a thief.  The first year or two I worked there, we had really heavy sticks to separate orders on the conveyor belt and they were really good at bringing someone down, but they were replaced with plastic ones after a couple of shoplifters got concussions.  I got a knife pulled on me a couple of times, but generally it was fun to catch somebody that wanted to put up a fight.  The last couple of years I worked there the company was discouraging tackling or forcibly stopping thieves.  Working there I did pick up on body language and could “read” a thief when they walked in the door.  It was pretty interesting to be in another store and pick one out of the crowd, then watch them attempt to pocket something.

I don't give a fuck about the merch, it's insured.  I care about the cultivated victim environment the company has created that has made these events so common and more escalated.

1999, at a different retailer, guy tried to run off with a couple of leather jackets.  We chased him.  He did NOT like the way he looked after, we guaranteed it.  🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Two different ways to look at this: termination and injury. Both are state law issues. What state, OP?

You would be hard pressed to prove that a policy that orders employees to avoid the risk imposed by intervening in a theft places them at risk of injury during a theft. You're describing a situation where the company wants the employee to do whatever it takes to avoid risk.

The fact that thieves come in and steal is not a risk event if they're allowed to do it with no intervention. Fraudulent returns are not risk events if the employee follows policy and doesn't confront the fraudsters.

How are people being injured by these thefts?

I worked LP for a Philly based department store chain (Strawbridge & Clothier) from '94 to '96 and we stopped everybody that we caught stealing. The company was sold to Macy's and we were told that we couldn't stop anyone who hit for less than $50.

I quit.

The events have led to unprovoked assaults.  That there is no deterrence policy in place is known, it increases the frequency of events, and the behaviors of flagrant daylight shoplifters are not constants that can be predicted upon.  Sometimes they decide to pepper spray the staff and guests.  

There is a massive racial component at play that the company refuses to acknowledge even exists.

Sounds like WalMart. I've been sitting in a dark corner of the lot having dinner when thousands in stolen electronics merch walked right out the door. Management called the police after the fact and they were long gone by then.

So you're saying that a policy that dictates not confronting shoplifters leads to more confrontations than a policy that dictates confronting shoplifters? If the police reports regarding the assaults aren't deterring the assaults, how would a company policy dictating confronting shoplifters deter shoplifting? It seems like the solution is not employees suing the employer, as the employee has a mandate to avoid the shoplifters. The solution is a bystander suing the employer because they have an expectation of some degree of safety and the company is failing to provide that. It's made worse if there's a defined pattern that they won't acknowledge.

And no, race has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on the situation in any way. Why would it? Are you going to start calling the police on ever person who enters the store that's of a specific race? That'll end well.

Is an employer responsible for unsafe work conditions? Absolutely.

Do I believe that you will convince a jury (about half of whom will be women) that a policy of "We tell our employees not to intervene, and to call the police!" creates the unsafe environment?  Well... good luck with that.

Such a lawsuit is probably barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the state’s workers compensation laws.  In other words, a workers comp claim is an employee’s only remedy against the employer.

The OP said they are not allowed to call the police

Well rats.  I guess I failed reading today.

If it’s a simple theft, and no harm to the employee, where’s the tort?  Employee does what’s in the policy manual, and moves on.  Just be a good witness.  Maybe the employer does, or does not, want that.  Employee actions are covered by policy.

So technically someone could take something off the rack and just walk it over to the return counter for pre paid card?