On Friday, June 11, 2010, the Eastern District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss my client's case. I had a feeling that it was going to happen but was willing to give it a shot, hoping that perhaps the judge will have a more liberal view of the claims asserted than he actually did.
My client was a loss prevention agent, working for one of the large security companies at a department store in Sacramento. He was terminated shortly after complaining to the corporate management about his co-workers and his immediate supervisor's time clock fraud and reporting false apprehensions of shoplifters that didn't actually happen. The formal reason for terminating my client was his "failure to meet apprehension goals" which is inherently nonsensical, as a loss prevention agent has no control over how many people actually try to steal merchandise from the store. The court found that preventing internal fraud that only affects the private employer and not public interest at large is not sufficient to give rise to a public policy retaliation and wrongful termination claim.
I was disappointed at the impunity that the employer will enjoy in this case, even though a number of witnesses informed me that my client's termination was orchestrated and there was a significant concern about him knowing about the misrepresentation.
Below is the court's order which includes the brief factual background of the case and the court's decision and analysis.
My client was a loss prevention agent, working for one of the large security companies at a department store in Sacramento. He was terminated shortly after complaining to the corporate management about his co-workers and his immediate supervisor's time clock fraud and reporting false apprehensions of shoplifters that didn't actually happen. The formal reason for terminating my client was his "failure to meet apprehension goals" which is inherently nonsensical, as a loss prevention agent has no control over how many people actually try to steal merchandise from the store. The court found that preventing internal fraud that only affects the private employer and not public interest at large is not sufficient to give rise to a public policy retaliation and wrongful termination claim.
I was disappointed at the impunity that the employer will enjoy in this case, even though a number of witnesses informed me that my client's termination was orchestrated and there was a significant concern about him knowing about the misrepresentation.
Below is the court's order which includes the brief factual background of the case and the court's decision and analysis.
RSS Feed
