If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NJ.com)   Supermarket worker fired after catching deli clerk eating her manager's salami   (nj.com) divider line 86
    More: Strange, South Jersey, Acme, SUPERVALU Inc., discrimination law  
•       •       •

19399 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Jan 2013 at 11:21 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



86 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-27 12:46:36 PM

Matthew Keene: Well, no wonder. I hear Acme management sucks.


I heard it was the employee that sucked.
 
2013-01-27 12:47:53 PM

Trixie212: Russad: Trixie212: A more likely scenario is that she was a worthless employee who thought she could use the manager's BJ as leverage to continue being a worthless employee but instead, eventually got fired for being a worthless employee.

FTFA: "20-year employee Mary Lynn Clark"

Yeah, you nailed it. I'm sure in 20 years of her being a worthless employee, they couldn't fire her. They've been patiently waiting through her worthlessness for an event like this, so they could harass her in the hopes that she would quit. When that didn't work, they finally decided "hey, maybe we should fire her for her worthlessness." THAT'S the most likely scenario. Good job.

Longevity doesn't necessarily mean someone is a good employee. Some people ride that fine line between messing up badly enough to get fired and doing the bare minimum required. It's not always a quick process to "paper trail" someone out the door.

We have those who will receive disciplinary notices all the way up to Final Written Warnings and then behave until the notices start to fall off and then start the process all over again. If she was that great of an employee, I don't believe any company would've risked this type of legal action to fire her. Who's got time to rehire and retrain someone else to the level a 20 year employee would have (or should have) been at?


Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Your position is that it is the "more likely scenario" that this at-will employee was worthless, and rather than fire her sometime else during the 20 years that she was there and hire someone else from the giant pool of people available to work a supermarket, they kept her on until a few months after she made a sexual harassment complaint to HR? In your "more likely scenario" they would rather keep building up some sort of paper trail that would merit firing her (as opposed to - worst case scenario - pay out some unemployment), but then suddenly decided, only after she made a complaint to HR and it would look suspiciously like retaliation, that they should let her go now? THAT is your "more likely scenario"?

Occam would love to offer you a shave.

Though you say "who's got time to rehire and retrain someone else to the level a 20 year employee would have... been at?" A 20-year employee is only difficult to replace if, and here's the important part, they aren't worthless.
 
2013-01-27 12:53:40 PM
Acme markets are Union...and this is what happens when you have that kind of Union "protection" behind you.

\They are failing in their operating area (PA/NJ/DE...). Giant (Ahold) has pretty much overtaken them in the Philly suburbs, along with newcomers like Wegmans and more specialty markets (Aldi, Bottom Dollar, etc.). Not to mention ShopRite, which has AMAZING loss leader specials every week.

\Have the WORST prices as well. They were up there with the former Genuardi's as having the worst/highest prices in the area, luckily Giant (and Weis) bought Genuardi's from Safeway earlier last year.

\CBS.
 
2013-01-27 12:55:17 PM

skinink: BumpInTheNight: So she walked in on some hanky-panky. She reported it, tried to make a huge deal out of it and wouldn't drop it even after everyone else acknowledged how trivial the incident was. I'd fire her harpy ass too.

Between this and the Farkers defending female teachers who sleep with student, I assume you work at some farked up places. Your job isn't a hook up joint or a love motel. What is it about having a professional work environment are you people missing? What a horrible manager, he even couldn't take his activity off property.


I don't personally but you have to expect that people who end up on a supermarket's night shift (especially the lifers like managers) are going to have momentary lapses in judgement. The incident was reported and the upper management decided to let it slide but moved the manager to a different store, she wouldn't drop it though. As usual with these articles we only get the innocent victim's story and for all we know the harassment afterwards was reactions to her crusade to get someone fired over a one-off thing.

Then there's this little thing here about why she was really fired:
Acme terminated the plaintiff's employment due to her admitted violation of company policy.

I guess uppity worker drones don't get the same respect as managers, oh noes.
 
2013-01-27 01:16:28 PM
Two basic rules for retail managers.

1. Don't screw with the money.
2. Don't screw the help.

Mess up the first one, and you could end up in jail. Mess up the second one and you either end up with a situation like the one in the story, or, when you decide not to promote your closet BJ girl in favor of a more qualified employee, you get hit with the sexual harassment claim, because you gave her the old quid pro quo a few months before, and it was totally all your idea.
 
2013-01-27 01:18:12 PM

BumpInTheNight: skinink: BumpInTheNight: So she walked in on some hanky-panky. She reported it, tried to make a huge deal out of it and wouldn't drop it even after everyone else acknowledged how trivial the incident was. I'd fire her harpy ass too.

Between this and the Farkers defending female teachers who sleep with student, I assume you work at some farked up places. Your job isn't a hook up joint or a love motel. What is it about having a professional work environment are you people missing? What a horrible manager, he even couldn't take his activity off property.

I don't personally but you have to expect that people who end up on a supermarket's night shift (especially the lifers like managers) are going to have momentary lapses in judgement. The incident was reported and the upper management decided to let it slide but moved the manager to a different store, she wouldn't drop it though. As usual with these articles we only get the innocent victim's story and for all we know the harassment afterwards was reactions to her crusade to get someone fired over a one-off thing.

Then there's this little thing here about why she was really fired:
Acme terminated the plaintiff's employment due to her admitted violation of company policy.

I guess uppity worker drones don't get the same respect as managers, oh noes.


"However, Acme did not comment further regarding Clark's alleged policy violation."

To be honest, if I were firing someone in retaliation, I probably would say something like "this employee was terminated due to her admitted violation of company policy and I choose not to expand on that" and not "I fired her in retaliation". That's just me, though.
 
2013-01-27 01:25:11 PM
Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell ya, I got to plead ignorance on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing was frowned upon. . . you know, because I've worked in a lot of offices, and I tell ya people do that all the time!
 
2013-01-27 01:26:20 PM

Russad: Trixie212: Russad: Trixie212: A more likely scenario is that she was a worthless employee who thought she could use the manager's BJ as leverage to continue being a worthless employee but instead, eventually got fired for being a worthless employee.

FTFA: "20-year employee Mary Lynn Clark"

Yeah, you nailed it. I'm sure in 20 years of her being a worthless employee, they couldn't fire her. They've been patiently waiting through her worthlessness for an event like this, so they could harass her in the hopes that she would quit. When that didn't work, they finally decided "hey, maybe we should fire her for her worthlessness." THAT'S the most likely scenario. Good job.

Longevity doesn't necessarily mean someone is a good employee. Some people ride that fine line between messing up badly enough to get fired and doing the bare minimum required. It's not always a quick process to "paper trail" someone out the door.

We have those who will receive disciplinary notices all the way up to Final Written Warnings and then behave until the notices start to fall off and then start the process all over again. If she was that great of an employee, I don't believe any company would've risked this type of legal action to fire her. Who's got time to rehire and retrain someone else to the level a 20 year employee would have (or should have) been at?

Let me make sure I'm clear on this. Your position is that it is the "more likely scenario" that this at-will employee was worthless, and rather than fire her sometime else during the 20 years that she was there and hire someone else from the giant pool of people available to work a supermarket, they kept her on until a few months after she made a sexual harassment complaint to HR? In your "more likely scenario" they would rather keep building up some sort of paper trail that would merit firing her (as opposed to - worst case scenario - pay out some unemployment), but then suddenly decided, only after she made a complaint to HR and it would look suspiciously like retaliation, that they should let her go now? THAT is your "more likely scenario"?

Occam would love to offer you a shave.

Though you say "who's got time to rehire and retrain someone else to the level a 20 year employee would have... been at?" A 20-year employee is only difficult to replace if, and here's the important part, they aren't worthless.


A worst case scenario would be an EEOC complaint that could cost a ton of money to defend. Paying unemployment is trifling compared to the hassles of legal issues.

My position is that the article is pretty one-sided in that we only hear what she and her attorney is alleging. That is hardly enough for me to be convinced that her allegations are correct. Considering that I've had to defend my company against bogus adverse termination claims before, I'm not willing to say that what she says should be taken at face value. If her former employer is on the defensive in a legal action, they are hardly going to publicize their position.

/just agreeing to disagree
 
2013-01-27 01:37:56 PM

Trixie212: A more likely scenario is that she was a worthless employee who thought she could use the manager's BJ as leverage to continue being a worthless employee but instead, eventually got fired for being a worthless employee.


Trixie212: My position is that the article is pretty one-sided in that we only hear what she and her attorney is alleging.


Your position, as stated, was that she was a bad employee.

If they were worried about an EEOC complaint, they wouldn't have kept her for 20 years, only to fire her after she made an HR complaint. If they were attempting to avoid a discrimination suit they did it in exactly the wrong way. I have a hard time believing they would stomach her terribleness for 20 years to avoid a lawsuit, but then fire her in a way that basically screams "please sue us."
 
2013-01-27 01:46:33 PM

Russad: Trixie212: A more likely scenario is that she was a worthless employee who thought she could use the manager's BJ as leverage to continue being a worthless employee but instead, eventually got fired for being a worthless employee.

Trixie212: My position is that the article is pretty one-sided in that we only hear what she and her attorney is alleging.

Your position, as stated, was that she was a bad employee.

If they were worried about an EEOC complaint, they wouldn't have kept her for 20 years, only to fire her after she made an HR complaint. If they were attempting to avoid a discrimination suit they did it in exactly the wrong way. I have a hard time believing they would stomach her terribleness for 20 years to avoid a lawsuit, but then fire her in a way that basically screams "please sue us."


Sigh...Jesus H. Christ

Okay...maybe worthless was an extreme word. Maybe rather than being worthless, she was just not stellar. Maybe she was farking mediocre at best and has managed to skate by. I don't know that she was any of those things but you don't know that she wasn't and the article is not clear and is rather biased in that it only states her claims that she was mistreated.

For all any of us knows, maybe the admitted policy violation she got fired over was egregious enough that the company decided her probable claims of retaliation afterwards were still worth getting rid of her over.

Honestly, I think she is full of sh*t.
 
2013-01-27 01:50:00 PM

Trixie212: Some people ride that fine line between messing up badly enough to get fired and doing the bare minimum required. It's not always a quick process to "paper trail" someone out the door.


I'm sorry, but if the "bare minimum required" isn't acceptable then you need to raise the minimum required. This is like the time my department supervisor told us all that we were expected to get at least "exceeds expectations" on our reviews or we were considered deficient. Or wearing the minimum required amount of Flair.
 
2013-01-27 01:57:08 PM
BFD............The world would be better if people were less concerned about who is farking who.

More fun, too.
 
2013-01-27 01:59:01 PM

BradleyUffner: Trixie212: Some people ride that fine line between messing up badly enough to get fired and doing the bare minimum required. It's not always a quick process to "paper trail" someone out the door.

I'm sorry, but if the "bare minimum required" isn't acceptable then you need to raise the minimum required. This is like the time my department supervisor told us all that we were expected to get at least "exceeds expectations" on our reviews or we were considered deficient. Or wearing the minimum required amount of Flair.


All companies have a level where performance is considered acceptable enough to not be disciplined but is not good enough to exceed expectations. That is what I meant by bare minimum required. People that ride that line are inevitably going to slip below it on occasion. I would think that most companies have employees like that.
 
2013-01-27 02:00:21 PM

Gunderson: Milo Minderbinder: That's horrible! What happened to the pickle slicer?

She was fired for jerkin' the gherkin.


Well, that doesn't sound kosher.

I bet the relationship went sour.
 
2013-01-27 02:02:04 PM
For all we know, she missed too many days of work and violated the attendance policy. If they've fired others for the same reason but didn't fire her, they would've opened the door to be sued by everyone who had been termed for that.

All I'm saying is that we don't know why she was fired and we shouldn't take her claims as being fact.
 
2013-01-27 02:06:22 PM
I just want to mention that I had been fired/asked to quit a job before. They really had no intention of keeping me. They had all their ducks lined up. If they really wanted to fire someone I doubt it would take a company 20 years to find an excuse. Maybe I'm expecting too much but if an employee was that bad and a manager was somehow unable to find cause, he would kick it upstairs to get help.
 
2013-01-27 02:10:28 PM
Trixie212:

Sigh...Jesus H. Christ

Okay...maybe worthless was an extreme word. Maybe rather than being worthless, she was just not stellar. Maybe she was farking mediocre at best and has managed to skate by. I don't know that she was any of those things but you don't know that she wasn't and the article is not clear and is rather biased in that it only states her claims that she was mistreated.

For all any of us knows, maybe the admitted policy violation she got fired over was egregious enough that the company decided her probable claims of retaliation afterwards were still worth getting rid of her over.

Honestly, I think she is full of sh*t.


So there's not enough information to make a judgement, but you felt the need to hop into the thread and make a judgement? So far your contributions have been:

That she's a worthless employee, but that she couldn't be fired because then she'd have to be replaced - and replacing a worthless employee is pretty difficult, I guess?

There's not enough information to say that the company did anything wrong, but at the same time this woman is totally in the wrong.

You've claimed that she was probably bad, but kept on as to avoid a lawsuit... all while ignoring that she was fired after making a complaint, in a way that says "please, for the love of all that is holy, sue us."

We get it, companies do no wrong. Employees are terrible.
 
2013-01-27 02:21:28 PM

Russad: Trixie212:

Sigh...Jesus H. Christ

Okay...maybe worthless was an extreme word. Maybe rather than being worthless, she was just not stellar. Maybe she was farking mediocre at best and has managed to skate by. I don't know that she was any of those things but you don't know that she wasn't and the article is not clear and is rather biased in that it only states her claims that she was mistreated.

For all any of us knows, maybe the admitted policy violation she got fired over was egregious enough that the company decided her probable claims of retaliation afterwards were still worth getting rid of her over.

Honestly, I think she is full of sh*t.

So there's not enough information to make a judgement, but you felt the need to hop into the thread and make a judgement? So far your contributions have been:

That she's a worthless employee, but that she couldn't be fired because then she'd have to be replaced - and replacing a worthless employee is pretty difficult, I guess?

There's not enough information to say that the company did anything wrong, but at the same time this woman is totally in the wrong.

You've claimed that she was probably bad, but kept on as to avoid a lawsuit... all while ignoring that she was fired after making a complaint, in a way that says "please, for the love of all that is holy, sue us."

We get it, companies do no wrong. Employees are terrible.


Just playing devil's advocate. And I never said companies do know wrong. I do think she is not telling the whole story because it's been my experience that a lot of people who get fired don't want to look at what they might have done to deserve being fired.

It sounds like you are suggesting that walking in on her manager getting serviced should have made her immune from getting fired no matter what she did. And no, I don't believe she was retaliated against or harassed.
 
2013-01-27 02:27:39 PM
static.someecards.com
 
2013-01-27 02:44:40 PM
A statement from Acme's external communications manager at Supervalu Inc. said Acme terminated the plaintiff's employment due to her admitted violation of company policy. However, Acme did not comment further regarding Clark's alleged policy violation.

Classic.

Acme External Communication Manager: "We terminated Mary Clark, because she admitted to us that she violated company policy."
Reporter: "What policy did she violate exactly?"
Acme External Communication Manager: "....."
 
2013-01-27 03:09:49 PM

Trixie212: It sounds like you are suggesting that walking in on her manager getting serviced should have made her immune from getting fired no matter what she did.


No, I'm suggesting that firing her after she made an SH claim and was harassed looks pretty suspicious. The beautiful thing about it is that if she was smart enough to make HR complaints about the harassment, or the manager was stupid enough to harass her in front of coworkers, it will be pretty easy to determine the veracity of her claims.

And no, I don't believe she was retaliated against or harassed.

And I don't think a 20-year employee conveniently becomes a terrible employee after making a sexual harassment claim. I'm more than happy to adjust my opinion of the case when more information is available. Unfortunately, all the company contributed was some vague claim that she broke a rule and that she admitted to doing so. (A fact that you are happy to accept as truth while claiming the rest of the article is suspect, I might add.)

Bottom line is that it will be up to her lawyer to prove a link between her firing and the complaint. I don't know how strong that case will be from a legal standpoint, but I think the information as presented makes the company's actions highly suspicious. Legality aside, it would be incredibly naive of you, or anyone else, to believe that a company couldn't find an infraction to fire you for if they wanted to retaliate against you.
 
2013-01-27 03:22:38 PM
Why does she hate the job creators?
 
2013-01-27 03:23:12 PM

Russad: Trixie212: It sounds like you are suggesting that walking in on her manager getting serviced should have made her immune from getting fired no matter what she did.

No, I'm suggesting that firing her after she made an SH claim and was harassed looks pretty suspicious. The beautiful thing about it is that if she was smart enough to make HR complaints about the harassment, or the manager was stupid enough to harass her in front of coworkers, it will be pretty easy to determine the veracity of her claims.

And no, I don't believe she was retaliated against or harassed.

And I don't think a 20-year employee conveniently becomes a terrible employee after making a sexual harassment claim. I'm more than happy to adjust my opinion of the case when more information is available. Unfortunately, all the company contributed was some vague claim that she broke a rule and that she admitted to doing so. (A fact that you are happy to accept as truth while claiming the rest of the article is suspect, I might add.)

Bottom line is that it will be up to her lawyer to prove a link between her firing and the complaint. I don't know how strong that case will be from a legal standpoint, but I think the information as presented makes the company's actions highly suspicious. Legality aside, it would be incredibly naive of you, or anyone else, to believe that a company couldn't find an infraction to fire you for if they wanted to retaliate against you.


If her HR department made the decision to term her based on anything less than a blatant violation on her part, especially after taking her claims into account, they are idiots.

And if they publicized the reason why they termed her, that could cause even more problems for them.

Maybe I just work for a company that tries to be fair when it comes to terminating employees. And yeah, I get that all companies are not that way. I just get a little tired of terminated employees making false claims because they know that we aren't going to publicly refute them.

I'm sorry. I just don't believe her and I don't think the whole story has come out. And yeah, I did believe the part where she got fired for violating a policy because she evidently admitted to that. When both sides say its a duck, then I suppose it's a farking duck.
 
2013-01-27 04:02:56 PM
dont shiat where you eat. although, i swear dating happens at my workplace. its frowned apon but not against the rules unless your dating the manager in your department.

/i work in a grocery store.
 
2013-01-27 04:09:01 PM

abhorrent1: So he's getting a BJ in a back room. Why does anyone care?


Presumably because we aren't 17 anymore.
 
2013-01-27 04:51:01 PM

Russad: Trixie212: A more likely scenario is that she was a worthless employee who thought she could use the manager's BJ as leverage to continue being a worthless employee but instead, eventually got fired for being a worthless employee.

FTFA: "20-year employee Mary Lynn Clark"

Yeah, you nailed it. I'm sure in 20 years of her being a worthless employee, they couldn't fire her. They've been patiently waiting through her worthlessness for an event like this, so they could harass her in the hopes that she would quit. When that didn't work, they finally decided "hey, maybe we should fire her for her worthlessness." THAT'S the most likely scenario. Good job.



union shop. Normal.
 
2013-01-27 05:43:16 PM
Fark, am I the only person who has never gotten some nookie during work hours?

/it seems like it
 
2013-01-27 05:58:40 PM
She was Oscar Fired.
 
2013-01-27 06:32:39 PM

Martonio: Fark, am I the only person who has never gotten some nookie during work hours?

/it seems like it


Sadly, you are not alone.
 
2013-01-27 06:37:07 PM

AllYourFarkAreBelongToMe: 44 posts into the thread and nobody's blamed Bill Clinton for setting the precedent for getting hummers in the workplace yet?

My work here is done.

cigarchoicemagazine.com
 
2013-01-27 07:25:05 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-01-27 07:57:41 PM
As someone who is currently working in a supermarket and in a relationship with someone I supervise, I understand the urge to BotC (Bone on the Cock). There's the thrill of danger in it.

But I don't, because I understand that the rest of my coworkers would prefer not to see my penis. It's just considerate.
 
2013-01-27 08:10:47 PM
Any time i may or may not have gotten head from or given head to a coworker it was safely far from work and nobody was in each other's chain of command.
 
2013-01-27 09:03:21 PM

ekdikeo4: union shop. Normal.


So, in your fantasy land, being in a union shop protected her for 20 years, but suddenly they mustered up enough to fire her, just after she made an HR complaint?

...Okay.
 
2013-01-27 09:04:06 PM

Trixie212: When both sides say its a duck, then I suppose it's a farking duck.


How about when one side says that both sides say it's a duck? That's still unquestionably a duck, too?
 
2013-01-28 02:44:01 PM
85 posts in and no stories of office shenanigans?!?! What the hell is wrong with you people???
I'm having a slow work day and need s**t to read!

best I have is taking the Help Desk girl back to my place for some lunchtime quickies a few years back.

/bring on the sexy work place stories!
 
Displayed 36 of 86 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report