Whole Foods Fires Worker for Stopping Shoplifter
By Tom Ryan
An employee for Whole Foods Markets in Ann Arbor, Michigan claims he lost his job after stopping a shoplifter. The retailer says he violated a policy that prohibits employees from physically touching a customer – even in cases of theft.
John Schultz told The Ann Arbor News that he had just gone on break at 7 p.m. last Sunday when he heard his store manager yelling for help in stopping a shoplifter. Mr. Schultz, the manager and another employee cornered the shoplifter between two cars in the parking lot, and Mr. Schultz told the shoplifter he was making a citizens arrest and to wait for the police to arrive. After the shoplifter broke away, Mr. Schultz caught up with him at a nearby intersection, grabbed the man’s jacket, and put his leg behind the man’s legs. But the manager told him to release the shoplifter after arriving at the intersection, Mr. Schultz complied, and the shoplifter got away.
Kate Klotz, a Whole Foods spokesperson, told the newspaper that the retailer’s policy is clear and listed in a booklet that all employees have to acknowledge that they received before they can start work.
“The fact that he touched him, period, is means for termination,” said Ms. Klotz.
Mr. Schultz, who had been working at the store for five years, most recently as a fishmonger, claims he acted as a private citizen on property that isn’t owned by Whole Foods.
“The fact that I worked at the store at (the time of the robbery) is coincidental,” he said. “If I had went over to the book store on my break and they were being ripped off, I would have helped them.”
But Ms. Klotz stressed, “He is still considered an employee of Whole Foods Market regardless of where he was and what was happening.”
Discussion Question: Do you think Whole Foods was right to fire an employee for physically stopping a shoplifter? What other policies are important for employees regarding shoplifting?
Wow, let’s see….
The manager yelled for help. The employee, who was actually on a break, came to give help, and then the manager and store isn’t happy with the help they got?
While I see the logic in protecting employees with such policies, it has gone beyond absurd.
Would he have been fired under the same policy for helping an elderly customer to their car? When I was in college, I worked for a chain that had many elderly customers. There were several times I physically helped out a customer in need (into or out of an electric shopping cart, or into a vehicle). Under Whole Foods policy of not touching a customer, helping a customer in this manner would have landed me out of a job.
It does say something about our society when we’ve written into policies clauses about being touch-free employees. There is some interesting research about how “cold” America has become relative to how we treat each other and lack of human contact is ranks right up there.
I get that Whole Foods doesn’t want the liability for an employee who might take it upon themselves to get into a scuffle with a shoplifter, but it seems to me their policy might also have some unintended consequences like we’ve seen in this example, or where it could actually impede good customer service by requiring employees to be hands-off the customer.
I don’t share Mark and Leon’s view that the World narrowly avoided Armageddon here; but even if I did, the issue here is not the–literally–“hands off” policy per se, but rather how “right idea/wrong approach” violations of it should be handled…and I don’t find WF’s approach laudable.
As for the manager’s actions, it reminds me of the old joke where a person (about to undergo a self-inflicted torture) tells another “whatever I say don’t help me,” and then right way (when the torture has begun) says “ignore what I said, HELP ME !!”
Even though John Schultz was not on Whole Foods’ property when he physically apprehended the shoplifter, he was being paid by Whole Foods. One of the reasons retailers pay high liability insurance premiums: they get into fights with thieves. Sometimes the violence ends with fatalities or severe injuries. It’s awful that a loyal five-year employee would be fired after apprehending a shoplifter, but it might’ve been worse if the violence escalated.
What a world! No, he should not be fired. All this politically correct stuff is getting old. Let’s use some common sense–the manager called for help and the employee tried to help and stop a shoplifter. I hope they offer the person their job back and provide him an apology, too!
Mr. Schultz has gone far beyond his job description. His customer service requirements are to act as a deterrent to shoplifters. He is not a security guard nor a loss prevention officer. While you can admire his loyalty to his company (or his disdain for thievery), the safety of its employees is paramount to Whole Foods or any other chain, for that matter. In fact, I’m surprised that Mr. Schultz’s manager wasn’t counseled for the whole thing.
These policies are meant to protect employees and customers and unless there is private security or a police officer on hand, I would never expect my staff to engage a suspected shoplifter. I would, however, expect that they use customer service tools to deter the shoplifter and possibly change his/her mind. Perhaps firing Mr. Schultz was a bit much but if the policies are clear, then from an HR perspective, it’s a lose-lose situation for both parties. Mr. Schultz lost his job and Whole Foods lost a long term associate who actually cares about his company.
I’m with Mark on this one. Having apprehended my share of shoplifters when at retail in the mid 90s, the liability concerns surrounding shoplifting are significant. The store absolutely has to impose this kind of severe consequence in order to prevent untrained store staff from playing aisle cops. The desire to “nail” a shoplifter has to be balanced by the real threats of lawsuits by the alleged shoplifter as well as the tendency of store personnel (young male personnel) to defend the turf on which they work. The bravado that I’ve seen displayed by unqualified store employees playing the role of store bounty hunter only invites legal issues.
I’m not being PC here–I’m just being realistic about the legal consequences and honest about the tendencies of store personnel.
No, he should not be fired. The manager yelled for help. Help for what? If you cannot stop a shoplifter, then why bother confronting them? Maybe Whole Foods should just set up a special checklane for shoplifters so they can walk right through untouched. If shoplifting is a problem then hire an outside security firm not owned by Whole Foods.
What would happen if a customer had a heart attack or was about to be hit by a car in the parking lot? Would it be OK to touch the customer then? I suppose we have to bear in mind that this is Ann Arbor, not 20 miles east in Detroit where store owners carry guns.
It’s pretty hard to create a store policy for every situation. Since the manager yelled for help, I think Whole Foods should give this employee a pass. Because Whole Foods used bad judgment in this case, they are now getting a lot of bad press.
If you were to look at the action of the manager yelling and soliciting help from other employees to stop a shoplifter, he is, in effect, requiring anyone within earshot to assist. If, for instance, an employee failed to knowingly comply, it would probably be a cause for dismissal. When the shoplifter was no longer on company property, would they no longer be considered a customer in any sense of the word (I wonder how they define a customer anyway)?
Was the employee acting as a private citizen at the time he touched the would-be criminal? It could also be argued that he acted as an agent for the grocery chain, so a court would have to sort out who in fact he was representing at the time and also whether the company policy was breached.
This issue really is a knee jerk reaction to the amount of litigation that many companies have to face every day. I believe the company’s policy is meant to protect them from facing frivolous lawsuits by the public. However, in this case, reason has certainly been thrown out the window!
He should not be fired. Retailers constantly complain about shrink, yet their own policies seem to ensure that it will continue. What are retailers more afraid of, lawyers or thieves?
I would agree with Mr. Levy and Mr. Livingston in questioning the Manager’s role in this situation. What is the manager doing following a shoplifter out of the store? Did someone SEE the item lifted and could they specifically identify it? And asking for help from other employees…this is not a black and white case.
I’d hire this man. He has a BACKBONE! Thank God there are still a few people out there who realize that loss prevention begins with the service clerk and ends with the CEO. Whole Foods should give this man a reward, not punish him. He showed dedication–something many of our peers complain is lacking in today’s worker.
Some of you should be glad this forum isn’t too public. Your laissez faire approach to loss prevention is at best an invitation to shoplifters. These creatures (shoplifters) talk amongst themselves as we do and exchange information on who is an easy mark.
Are you REALLY cowering in fear from lawsuits filed by criminals? Find ways to replace judges, lobby against government officials who support that kind of idiocy, prosecute offenders, and make it KNOWN that you prosecute aggressively.
Don’t think for a minute that it doesn’t deter to be aggressive. Even criminals want a bargain, and being chased and caught in the public eye is humiliating. Furthermore, put your legal department to work on creative ways to intimidate shoplifters via legal action. Sue them, and refuse to settle for less than ACTUAL costs. How much money is a Store Director’s time worth? I’ll guarantee that it is more than these unfortunates bring in. Will you ever see it? Probably not, but you’ll be able to sleep at night knowing you did EVERYTHING possible to deter loss.
He should not have been fired. He was reacting to the manager asking for help.
Also, what if a customer starts choking on one of the free pita bread samples that are always out at Whole Foods? Can you perform a Heimlich? Will the employee lose their job?
The situation should have been handled on a case by case basis, with this employee going above and beyond. Yes, he could have been hurt and that should have been explained and used as a corporate example as to why not to intervene. But firing is just ridiculous.
Bizarre.
The manager calls for help to stop a shoplifter. The employee is on break and responds. They (including the Manager) corner the shoplifter (oh, sorry, I meant register phobic customer) in the parking lot. The “customer” makes a break for it and the employee is fired for trying to stop him.
One, he is not a customer. Two, the manager helped create the situation by pursuing the thief into the parking lot. Not that I blame the manager. I will bet his pay is based partly on sales margin, which is affected by shrink. Three, I will take a passionate employee that requires being ratcheted down, then the “that isn’t my job” employee.
All and all, Whole Foods has got this one wrong. There may be more to the story, but on paper it sounds as if they could have patted him on the back for his passion and commitment to the store with one hand, and counseled him with the other.
And while I agree that customer service deters shoplifters, most retailers don’t have enough employees to handle normal levels of customer service, let alone enough to deter shoplifters.
One more thing:
Attention, all register phobics! Please visit your nearest Whole Foods Market for amazing deals!
God forbid someone should help prevent a shoplifting incident. Whole Foods overreacted to this one. I’d hire the guy in a minute, and probably give him a raise, because shoplifting is a serious problem. If my margins were as high as Whole Foods, than maybe I’d have the same policy, who knows?
There’s apparently a very fine line between being a hero or a villain these days.
In a world where set “rules” do not always make sense and may not reasonably be applied to every certain fluky situation, the judgment of the human brain sometimes must be allowed to prevail. Perhaps Mr. Schultz deserved a reprimand or reminder, but he was treated unbelievably shabbily by his employer. He will certainly receive many job offers from other employers who appreciate him more. Whole Foods, a business of which I am a fan on many levels, just went down a few notches in my estimation. Their law department gave them bad advice, and unfortunately management took it.
As other commentators have pointed out, the Whole Foods “no touching rule” also seems to ensnare any employee who might be attempting to aid an injured or sick customer, preventing a fall, or trying to restrain an attempted child abductor. Maybe it’s time to have those lawyers take another look at the rules.
If I read this right, the manager should also be fired for asking the employee to help him stop the shoplifter.
This company has lost their mind! Not only is it a public relations disaster that I hope they receive the proper exposure over, but it tells their employees that company policy is more important than following your manager’s orders or calls for help.
I wonder how well the decision makers in this case would have reacted if they were there at the time that this incident came down. I wonder if they would have been so “cool” and composed and remembered all the fine print in their training of 5 years ago?
I think this is a very bad decision on Whole Foods part and says volumes about their sense of fairness and loyalty. Quite a corporate culture; doesn’t it make you want to work at Whole Foods? And the CEO is on blogs in disguise?
I’d have given him a week’s suspension and reprimand, for the reasons stated well by several others above.
Mr. Levy is spot on with this one–it all comes down to job function. As a fishmonger, Mr. Schultz should be primarily concerned with fish. He should not be concerned with shoplifting, even if the item(s) being stolen is fish. Certainly if he was a loss prevention manager, he could be expected to apprehend the shoplifter with reasonable force. Still, I wouldn’t have fired him. Since he seems committed to eliminating shoplifting, why not move him to the loss prevention area?
Let us understand why such a policy of ‘not touching the customer’ is in place in the first place! I believe the motive is to avoid an accidental scuffle which may lead to a lawsuit against the retailer.
I bet there would also be policies to reward employees for loyalty and thinking about the retailer’s welfare.
The employee acted in good faith to help out his colleague and as a good citizen by trying to stop a miscreant.
The retailer should honor the employee for loyalty and if the technicality is such an issue, fire him as per the policy but then hire him back as someone who is loyal to the retailer and a good citizen.
I am sure that people will understand!
All the more reason to organize Whole Foods’ workers. Union contract language could have settled this dispute before it started.