• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mom Sues Target Claiming Humiliating “Walk Of Shame” Upon Firing Led To Son’s Suicide

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes I have.
Especially enough to see that you are taking this whole situation rather personally instead of going on the facts of the case.

This is a demeaning and deplorable practice and he quite possibly did nothing wrong.

Also, good job singling me out since I was the only one who responded to you. Are you going to call bullshit on all the other Aspies in this thread, too? And you're actually saying his AS should not have been taken into account in how he was handled at all?

But you know go ahead and praise whatever you think needs defending here.
 

DarkFlow

Banned
That's because it's probably a local thing.

There is no way if this was standard protocol for the company this wouldn't be known. Local management are probably morons who think they can treat subordinates however they want.

I don't see how it would work well anyway. Most of the stores have the office right in the front near the registers. It would be a very short walk.
 

FTF

Member
Wow, this is fucked up. Hope she wins lawsuit and Target changes this terrible policy. I like Target too :/
 

Hex

Banned
This is a demeaning and deplorable practice and he quite possibly did nothing wrong.

Also, good job singling me out since I was the only one who responded to you. Are you going to call bullshit on all the other Aspies in this thread, too? And you're actually saying his AS should not have been taken into account in how he was handled at all?

But you know go ahead and praise whatever you think needs defending here.

I am not calling bullshit on anyone, and I am not praising anyone at all.
Making an example out of those who have done something in a work place is not a new practice nor will it end anytime soon. Again we do not know if he did something or did not.
I am saying that we do not have the facts, and I am saying that not everyone knows or has all of the information on how to handle some conditions.
I myself am quite familiar with it due to my girlfriends son, and I am rather proud of the fact that he does not go playing the "aspie" card every chance he gets.
I am going to step away here because it is not my intention to sidetrack this thread.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
I'm glad you find it to be a good reflection of what things are like for you.

I know exactly where you're coming from man, I feel the same sometimes. If you ever want to talk, feel free to PM me :)

And yeah,fuck target. If I lived in the US I'd boycott them.

I'm "new" to it man, and it's been a long time coming. I'm 32 and was just diagnosed last year. Been trying to tell people my whole life that something was wrong with me and I needed help, but no one listened. Always got ignorant responses like, "No crazy person can say they're crazy."

Fortunately I have an amazing psychologist counseling me. Just made some great strides, even today. It's just tough and overwhelming, knowing that I've made mistakes in nearly every social situation I've ever experienced. I could fill an entire thread talking about that. It's hard to not feel like my entire life has been wasted.

But I digress. Thanks for the kind words and offering of support. It's been a tough day.
 

Syriel

Member
Walmart calls the cops, have you follow them to the Asset protection office, and sort it out from thete.

Store loss prevention employees usually rely on intimidation/fear to keep people in line.

I'll never forget one incident in college when a buddy and I went to Fry's to pick up some computer parts. As we were walking out the door, one of the store loss prevention guys comes over, grabs the motherboard box out of my hands and demands to know if I paid for it.

Given that the store exit was just past the registers, I was understandably miffed (and wasn't in the mood to be pushed around). After he refused to give it back (and threatened to call the police on me for the cardinal sin of trying to walk out of the store with my purchase), I ended up following him across the store and back behind the cashier area (which was supposed to be employee only).

Of course at this point, I think I was the one doing the intimidating. Even though I was much smaller than him in size, I was repeatedly (and loudly) requesting that he return my stolen property and asking when the police were going to arrive. I also refused to let him out of my sight until he handed it over.

Eventually I got an apology from the manager, but it was an interesting turn of events. Mr. "Security Guard" had no problem being aggressive at the outset, but as soon as I challenge his actions, he just turned tail and ran.

To this day I don't know what he was thinking. The whole thing was just bizarre.
 

CCS

Banned
I'm "new" to it man, and it's been a long time coming. I'm 32 and was just diagnosed last year. Been trying to tell people my whole life that something was wrong with me and I needed help, but no one listened. Always got ignorant responses like, "No crazy person can say they're crazy."

Fortunately I have an amazing psychologist counseling me. Just made some great strides, even today. It's just tough and overwhelming, knowing that I've made mistakes in nearly every social situation I've ever experienced. I could fill an entire thread talking about that. It's hard to not feel like my entire life has been wasted.

But I digress. Thanks for the kind words and offering of support. It's been a tough day.

I'm glad to hear that you've got a good psychologist and you're starting to make steps. I know the diagnosis makes a huge difference to how you feel about yourself.
 

Sanjuro

Member
I really fail to see the link between the death and Target based upon the accusation. It's going to be a hard sell to attach this as a company practice.
 

HeySeuss

Member
Petty theft is either an infraction or a misdemeanor in CA. It's not a felony, so it would be unlikely for officers to arrest without some sort of proof. And if store management did lie to the officers, then they could still be liable for false imprisonment.

And the original story doesn't say it was police that handcuffed the kid (the lawsuit may or may not be more specific; didn't see that linked in OP or in the story).

If it was police who did the handcuffing, then it doesn't make sense that that would bring the kid to the back of the store, then the front. If they've place him under arrest, then they should be taking him out of the store and bringing him in for booking.

If it was store security, then any arrest and detainment would have been invalid if any theft didn't occur within view of the store employee.

Theft is a misdemeanor yes, but there are several misdemeanors that officers can make an arrest just based on the allegation itself. Theft is one. Public indecency is another.

I'm using common sense by saying the officer put the handcuffs on him at first, but its entirely possible that loss prevention did this too. They do actually have the authority to detain someone until the police arrive.

Most companies don't allow this though as it is a huge liability. That's why you see people getting fired for chasing after someone, etc. I don't know California law but I'm from Ohio and loss prevention officers are given that authority to detain and investigate potential thefts and hold people until a police officer arrives on scene.

And no, it wouldn't be false imprisonment. He was never put in jail, he was under arrest while the complaint was investigated. If you wanted to get technical it would be false arrest, and even that wouldn't apply because the officer was acting in good faith that a crime had occurred. The fact that no charges were pressed doesn't make if false arrest.
 

knkng

Member
Wow, talk about overkill. I've actually been fired for legitimate (although unintentional) theft, and it was no big deal. They brought me into the office, I had a friendly chat with the loss prevention guy, wrote a confession note, signed a resignation, and then they walked me out of the store.

And that was it.
 

HeySeuss

Member
I really fail to see the link between the death and Target based upon the accusation. It's going to be a hard sell to attach this as a company practice.

This is no different than somebody getting bullied at school and the victim committing suicide as a result of the bullying. Being publicly shamed in from of friends and strangers alike would cause serious mental distress to someone that has a mental illness. This won't be hard to pin on target at all. Especially if it can be proven they routinely do this stuff.
 
Hope she wins lawsuit and Target changes this terrible policy.
There probably isn't an explicit corporate policy specifically designed to shame/embarrass employees that are accused of theft.

However, I can see this lawsuit creating a corporate policy that has specific steps to prevent a potential "walk of shame" from happening.
 

Sponge

Banned
This story made me sick to my stomach. I hope that mother wins her case. I will not be shopping at Target ever again.
 
I don't see how it would work well anyway. Most of the stores have the office right in the front near the registers. It would be a very short walk.

Only if the employee worked the registers. Most employees work the floor in one of several departments. "The Walk of Shame" is when a Manager will allow the employee to come in, clock in, and start working the floor before having the employee detained/cuffed and brought to the office.

The better way to do it would be a wait for the employee to show up for their shift and ask to speak to them before they clock in.
 

tokkun

Member
This is no different than somebody getting bullied at school and the victim committing suicide as a result of the bullying. Being publicly shamed in from of friends and strangers alike would cause serious mental distress to someone that has a mental illness. This won't be hard to pin on target at all. Especially if it can be proven they routinely do this stuff.

The major difference is that in bullying cases there is obvious malicious intent - the only purpose of the bullying is to hurt the victim. In this case the company would likely argue that the embarrassment he suffered was just a side effect, and that the intent of the policy was to deter future theft.

Given that he was in police custody, it's probably better to compare it to other cases that have challenged the legality of perp walks.
 

Surge

Member
Disgusting

The professional thing to do would be to wait for the employee to come in and pull them aside and talk privately.

Fuck off Target
 

Sanjuro

Member
This is no different than somebody getting bullied at school and the victim committing suicide as a result of the bullying. Being publicly shamed in from of friends and strangers alike would cause serious mental distress to someone that has a mental illness. This won't be hard to pin on target at all. Especially if it can be proven they routinely do this stuff.

I'm not a lawyer, but that isn't what the article really is getting at. They seem to be overshooting in the hopes of finding some fantastical policy. In reality, probably the best they are looking at is some shoddy management.

What we don't know is how the kid acted either. He could have acted out causing the handcuffs to be used, or he could have just been standing around. The blame seems to rest more on the officer's procedure after reading the article.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
The major difference is that in bullying cases there is obvious malicious intent - the only purpose of the bullying is to hurt the victim. In this case the company would likely argue that the embarrassment he suffered was just a side effect, and that the intent of the policy was to deter future theft.

Given that he was in police custody, it's probably better to compare it to other cases that have challenged the legality of perp walks.

Good lawyer: So you're admitting that you intended to publicly humiliate him? To make other employees fear that intense humiliation?

Target: *writes huge check*
 
The major difference is that in bullying cases there is obvious malicious intent - the only purpose of the bullying is to hurt the victim. In this case the company would likely argue that the embarrassment he suffered was just a side effect, and that the intent of the policy was to deter future theft.

Given that he was in police custody, it's probably better to compare it to other cases that have challenged the legality of perp walks.

The intent is to deter future theft... through embarrassment/shame. So hurting the employee that's being "made an example of" is paramount to the strategy.

I agree it's better to compare it to perp walks though.
 

HeySeuss

Member
The major difference is that in bullying cases there is obvious malicious intent - the only purpose of the bullying is to hurt the victim. In this case the company would likely argue that the embarrassment he suffered was just a side effect, and that the intent of the policy was to deter future theft.

Given that he was in police custody, it's probably better to compare it to other cases that have challenged the legality of perp walks.

I would argue that the main purpose of the walk would be to hurt the victim. Someone without a mental illness would be embarrassed and ashamed for a couple of days or longer depending on how their friends and family took the news. However someone with Asbergers(even though it's no longer used as a diagnosis term) can't properly cope with those feelings and would probably shut themselves off from the world for an extended period of time or as in this case not be able to deal with the pressure at all and take their own life.

Target knew he was on the spectrum, and despite this knowledge pushed forward with their proving a point culture and gave no consideration to how someone with a mental illness would react to that kind of treatment.
 

Arcayne

Member
My GF works in one of the Targets in that area and knew of the guy. Said he held a very depressive demeanor, and made numerous controversial comments such as how he wanted to burn down the store etc.

In regards to the walk of shame, it is done only after months of evidence collected by management on repeated theft.

Regardless, its a tragedy. My condolensces to the mother.
 

Syriel

Member
Theft is a misdemeanor yes, but there are several misdemeanors that officers can make an arrest just based on the allegation itself. Theft is one. Public indecency is another.

I'm using common sense by saying the officer put the handcuffs on him at first, but its entirely possible that loss prevention did this too. They do actually have the authority to detain someone until the police arrive.

Most companies don't allow this though as it is a huge liability. That's why you see people getting fired for chasing after someone, etc. I don't know California law but I'm from Ohio and loss prevention officers are given that authority to detain and investigate potential thefts and hold people until a police officer arrives on scene.

And no, it wouldn't be false imprisonment. He was never put in jail, he was under arrest while the complaint was investigated. If you wanted to get technical it would be false arrest, and even that wouldn't apply because the officer was acting in good faith that a crime had occurred. The fact that no charges were pressed doesn't make if false arrest.

CA requires arrests for misdemeanors to be made in the presence of the arresting officer.

Exceptions include: Domestic Violence, DUI (any vehicle or vessel), Battery at a school, Assault on emergency workers, firearm at an airport, Elder Abuse, and juveniles.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?file=833-851.90&group=00001-01000&section=pen

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-2299302.html

Given that Gentles was over 18, he could only be arrested for a misdemeanor by whomever fit the presence requirement. If there was simply mere "suspicion" or it was a false allegation, the arrest is unlawful.
 

HeySeuss

Member
CA requires arrests for misdemeanors to be made in the presence of the arresting officer.

Exceptions include: Domestic Violence, DUI (any vehicle or vessel), Battery at a school, Assault on emergency workers, firearm at an airport, Elder Abuse, and juveniles.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?file=833-851.90&group=00001-01000&section=pen

http://le.alcoda.org/publications/files/CITIZENSARREST.pdf

http://www.greghillassociates.com/lawyer-attorney-2299302.html

Given that Gentles was over 18, he could only be arrested for a misdemeanor by whomever fit the presence requirement. If there was simply mere "suspicion" or it was a false allegation, the arrest is unlawful.

That's not how it works. He was arrested by a police officer not the loss prevention guy. He may have detained him, but that's different than being under arrest. An arrest due to a false allegation isn't false arrest. The officer would be acting in good faith that the allegations are true. It would be filing a false police report on the Target guy.

But we don't even know if any of that applies in this case because its just speculation since we don't know exactly what happened or why he wasn't charged.
 

Syriel

Member
That's not how it works. He was arrested by a police officer not the loss prevention guy. He may have detained him, but that's different than being under arrest. An arrest due to a false allegation isn't false arrest. The officer would be acting in good faith that the allegations are true. It would be filing a false police report on the Target guy.

But we don't even know if any of that applies in this case because its just speculation since we don't know exactly what happened or why he wasn't charged.

Except the officer wouldn't be the one making the arrest if the misdemeanor didn't happen in his presence. The officer would simply be taking custody of the arrested individual.

The loss prevention guy would have been the one making the arrest. And he would be subject to the same presence restrictions as the police officer.

Basically, as described in the article ("At the direction of two members of the store management") a Target employee effected the arrest and any police officers would have simply accepted custody. Any liability for false arrest would be on Target since their employees would have done the arresting.

I included the specific CA legal code, a fully cited summary from a CA DA's office and a brief summary from a defense lawyer in the last post that pretty much covers it all.
 
Not sure, but what they would do is wait for your shift to start, wait till you are back in your department working, then they would call the police. They would go back to the department, handcuff you on site and walk to to the front office where they would grill you about what you are being accused off, then you would be walked out of the office and outside to a patrol car.

The managers that I worked for made it very clear that it was making an example out of somebody and meant to be a deterrent to others.

Its total bullshit. The best advice I can give to anybody here that works in retail is to get out. I worked retail for about 6 years or so and its the absolute worst with no future.
isn't that basically how every retailer treats employee theft? gather evidence, then drop the boom when you're at work in a terribl;e attempt at 'showing the rest' they mean business?


still doesn't stop employee theft. people mainly steal because they think they won't get caught and see the person who was caught as a failure.
 
Not sure, but what they would do is wait for your shift to start, wait till you are back in your department working, then they would call the police. They would go back to the department, handcuff you on site and walk to to the front office where they would grill you about what you are being accused off, then you would be walked out of the office and outside to a patrol car.

The managers that I worked for made it very clear that it was making an example out of somebody and meant to be a deterrent to others.
Maybe hiring workers that you feel some level of trust with would be a better solution than this. I can safely say if that ever happened to me I'd be "making an example" of a manager or two afterwards.
 
Good lawyer: So you're admitting that you intended to publicly humiliate him? To make other employees fear that intense humiliation?

Target: *writes huge check*

It's really disgusting and frustrating how employers constantly think employees are doing bad shit.

Half my time at Countrywide was spent explaining to my boss that I was doing my job.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
So many people upset, but keep in mind you're reading a report that only really has information from the lawsuit.. actually all the info is from the suit.

More than likely this guy stole something.

It's sad and tragic he killed himself.. but he was still fired, more than likely with cause.

It never mentions if Target knew he was autistic. The police handcuffed him, and took him away. They probably had something on them. I've worked with quite a few LP in my job, and the rules these days for them are pretty strict.. they can't prosecute anyone without really good evidence, and they can't accuse someone of stealing without proof. More than likely they had this guy on camera doing something. Not pressing charges doesn't mean they didn't have him caught stealing, just that it was worth pressing charges.. probably trespassed him and fired him.

Those key details are left out, and obviously the lawyer is playing the sympathy card hard.

..but I fail to see how Target having someone removed from their store for stealing can be held liable in a lawsuit for his death. If he did steal, it's on him, not Target.
 

numble

Member
Syriel said:
And the original story doesn't say it was police that handcuffed the kid (the lawsuit may or may not be more specific; didn't see that linked in OP or in the story).

If it was police who did the handcuffing, then it doesn't make sense that that would bring the kid to the back of the store, then the front. If they've place him under arrest, then they should be taking him out of the store and bringing him in for booking.
Except the officer wouldn't be the one making the arrest if the misdemeanor didn't happen in his presence. The officer would simply be taking custody of the arrested individual.

The loss prevention guy would have been the one making the arrest. And he would be subject to the same presence restrictions as the police officer.

Basically, as described in the article ("At the direction of two members of the store management") a Target employee effected the arrest and any police officers would have simply accepted custody. Any liability for false arrest would be on Target since their employees would have done the arresting.

I included the specific CA legal code, a fully cited summary from a CA DA's office and a brief summary from a defense lawyer in the last post that pretty much covers it all.

The law firm seems to allege that the police made the arrest, and that it was an alleged felony:
The lawsuit alleges that Target Corporation, Target’s Pasadena Store Team Leader Anthony Mims and Executive Team Leader of Asset Protection Charles Godinez falsely imprisoned Mr. Gentles without a reasonable basis to believe that he had committed a felony.

On July 15, 2014, 10 minutes before Mr. Gentles was scheduled to begin work, he was met by police and Target security personnel at the front entrance of the Pasadena store. At the direction of Mr. Mims and Mr. Godinez, the police forcefully grabbed Mr. Gentles, emptied his pockets, pulled his hat off, handcuffed him and then paraded him through the Target store in front of co-workers and customers. With no idea as to why he was being arrested, Mr. Gentles was forcibly detained, questioned and taken to the police department. He was never charged and was released the same day.

http://www.mcnicholaslaw.com/in-the...orporation-false-imprisonment-wrongful-death/

The California Penal Code does allow you to add up the total stolen over 12 months, in the case of employees stealing from employers, to get to the qualification for the felony of grand theft.
 
So many people upset, but keep in mind you're reading a report that only really has information from the lawsuit.. actually all the info is from the suit.

More than likely this guy stole something.

It's sad and tragic he killed himself.. but he was still fired, more than likely with cause.

It never mentions if Target knew he was autistic. The police handcuffed him, and took him away. They probably had something on them. I've worked with quite a few LP in my job, and the rules these days for them are pretty strict.. they can't prosecute anyone without really good evidence, and they can't accuse someone of stealing without proof. More than likely they had this guy on camera doing something. Not pressing charges doesn't mean they didn't have him caught stealing, just that it was worth pressing charges.. probably trespassed him and fired him.

Those key details are left out, and obviously the lawyer is playing the sympathy card hard.

..but I fail to see how Target having someone removed from their store for stealing can be held liable in a lawsuit for his death. If he did steal, it's on him, not Target.

it wouldn't be as much FUN if they just sent the cops to the perps home. gotta wait until they get to work and make a show of force!
 
Just cuff and humiliate people with no evidence, not the best policy for a retail giant. I hope the mother wins the suit, even if the kid hadn't commit suicide Target should pay for putting him through that with no charges ever being filed.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
it wouldn't be as much FUN if they just sent the cops to the perps home. gotta wait until they get to work and make a show of force!

I get what you're saying, but I'm sure it's all just easier to do it at the store. You know the person is there, you have a room to question them and show evidence, etc.

..but yeah, I'm sure most LP and Store Managers don't mind the bonus of people noticing someone escorted out of a building.

If they dude did nothing wrong, then Target is fucked for wrongful termination and honestly you could get them on the other things as well.. but just because charges weren't filed doesn't mean they didn't have cause or evidence. Could have been something small.

Just cuff and humiliate people with no evidence, not the best policy for a retail giant. I hope the mother wins the suit, even if the kid hadn't commit suicide Target should pay for putting him through that with no charges ever being filed.

Where does it say anywhere that they have no evidence? You are reading basically a report on a lawsuit.
 
Where does it say anywhere that they have no evidence? You are reading basically a report on a lawsuit.

Fair enough, but it appears they never filed charges, so why put the kid through that humiliation? If they weren't going to file charges they could've discreetly fired him like most companies do.
 

NervousXtian

Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
Fair enough, but it appears they never filed charges, so why put the kid through that humiliation? If they weren't going to file charges they could've discreetly fired him like most companies do.

It's California.. they have to have cause to fire someone if there's company policies about termination. Having the police come and arrest him makes that all moot, he's fired with cause and it's done with.
 
I get what you're saying, but I'm sure it's all just easier to do it at the store. You know the person is there, you have a room to question them and show evidence, etc.

..but yeah, I'm sure most LP and Store Managers don't mind the bonus of people noticing someone escorted out of a building.

If they dude did nothing wrong, then Target is fucked for wrongful termination and honestly you could get them on the other things as well.. but just because charges weren't filed doesn't mean they didn't have cause or evidence. Could have been something small.

Where does it say anywhere that they have no evidence? You are reading basically a report on a lawsuit.

gonna guess, like a few people have, that they have evidence on video etc, but just chose not to prosecute.
 
this is the first story I went into thinking someone was over reacting and sue happy.




but turned out to not be the case, get that target money!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom