Employee term'd over theft, others possibly involved - Questions

[Hank_the_Tank]

State is California

An employee (employee 1) was fired for theft (selling goods under the table to our clients, pocketing $$$).

Employee 1 lives with employee 2 and 3, and they are also related.

Employee 2 and 3 are in sensitive areas of the company, inventory control (manager) and customer account management, and since this went on for several months, there is reason to believe they knew what was going on.

Employee 2 and 3 are good workers, and I understand CA is an "at will" state, however I do not want a legal issue afterwards for wrongful term or discrimination.

Here are my questions:

1. Can an employer ask an employee about the actions of another former employee, as long as it is in direct relation to the theft?

2. IF you have reasonable suspicion, that an employee has knowledge of said acts due to relation and location (live together), can you question said acts committed by Employee 1 to employee 2 and 3?

Thank you

 

[cbg]

1.) Yes. And he'd be an idiot if he didn't.

2.) See above.

You could fire employees 1, 2 and 3 out of hand and you'd be at no risk for a wrongful termination or a discrimination claim, unless there is a GREAT deal more that you haven't told us.

 

[Hank_the_Tank]

1.) Yes. And he'd be an idiot if he didn't.

2.) See above.

You could fire employees 1, 2 and 3 out of hand and you'd be at no risk for a wrongful termination or a discrimination claim, unless there is a GREAT deal more that you haven't told us.

What are the laws governing employee confidentiality?

Are there any in this situation?

Does probable cause allow an employer the latitude to discuss the actions of a 3rd party with another employee?

There is nothing being left out except the details - names, places, identifiers, etc since this is a public site. Facts of the situation are all present.

 

[Zigner]

What are the laws governing employee confidentiality?

Are there any in this situation?

Does probable cause allow an employer the latitude to discuss the actions of a 3rd party with another employee?

There is nothing being left out except the details - names, places, identifiers, etc since this is a public site. Facts of the situation are all present.

Fire them all...no more worries.

 

[Hank_the_Tank]

Fire them all...no more worries.

I get that, being in an "at will" state.

I am looking for info in dealing with the possible aftermath - EDD , legal, etc.

Nothing can stop an employee from going either route, and I am looking for info as to what rights I have as an employer in this situation.

 

[Just Blue]

I get that, being in an "at will" state.

I am looking for info in dealing with the possible aftermath - EDD , legal, etc.

Nothing can stop an employee from going either route, and I am looking for info as to what rights I have as an employer in this situation.

You should consult with your attorney. As a business owner you should have one...

 

[cbg]

What are the laws governing employee confidentiality? What few confidentiality laws there are, do not apply in this situation

Are there any in this situation? No.

Does probable cause allow an employer the latitude to discuss the actions of a 3rd party with another employee? Probable cause does not apply here. When you are investigating a case of misconduct, thievery, discrimination, harassment, anything that does not include medical information, in the workplace, you may discuss anything you want with anyone you want. You not only may discuss the actions of one employee with another in this case, you'd be negligent if you didn't.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

 

[Hank_the_Tank]

You should consult with your attorney. As a business owner you should have one...

I do, but like any financially responsible BO, I'd rather try to avoid a $400/hr conversation if I can.

Guess I was wrong to think good minds congregate here for solid advice or those responding own a business, manage employees, and the like.

 

[HC1432]

You not only may discuss the actions of one employee with another in this case, you'd be negligent if you didn't.

Possibly, to the extent that you believe the fact that management's knowledge that the individuals live together and are related is enough to assume they should have been aware that these other two employees were capable of misconduct, theft, etc themselves (should something else occur in the workplace). Always better to be cautious and considering there is of course no illegality to questioning them or even taking adverse action (i.e. termination), it is certainly recommended that the OP takes appropriate action to address his/her concerns related to the other two employees. The 1st employee has no "confidentiality rights" in this situation.

 

[HC1432]

I do, but like any financially responsible BO, I'd rather try to avoid a $400/hr conversation if I can.

Guess I was wrong to think good minds congregate here for solid advice or those responding own a business, manage employees, and the like.

Where is the $400 coming from? Why would there be any financial exposure in investigating this issue with the other two employees? You have financial liability by keeping them employed if they are the types of employees who would condone or possibly even participate in the type of misconduct that you described with the first employee.

 

[Just Blue]

I do, but like any financially responsible BO, I'd rather try to avoid a $400/hr conversation if I can.

Guess I was wrong to think good minds congregate here for solid advice or those responding own a business, manage employees, and the like.

Oy. Talk to your Attorney.

 

[LdiJ]

I do, but like any financially responsible BO, I'd rather try to avoid a $400/hr conversation if I can.

Guess I was wrong to think good minds congregate here for solid advice or those responding own a business, manage employees, and the like.

Look, the others are telling you the truth. Absent a contract an employer can fire any employee, for any reason that is not protected by law (race, religion, gender etc).

So, the worst you are looking at if you fire employees 2 and 3 is that they will be able to collect unemployment. After all, you do not want to accuse them of stealing or abetting stealing without proof.

However, you also have to look at it from a business perspective as well. Is it in your business's best interest to fire these employees? If it were me, I would consider how long they had been employees vs how long the thief had been an employee. I would also look at how they were related.

If, for example 2 and 3 are married, long term employees and 1 is their son whom you only hired for the summer, then I would not assume that mom and dad had any knowledge at all that their son was stealing...again, example only.

 

[Hank_the_Tank]

What are the laws governing employee confidentiality? What few confidentiality laws there are, do not apply in this situation

Are there any in this situation? No.

Does probable cause allow an employer the latitude to discuss the actions of a 3rd party with another employee? Probable cause does not apply here. When you are investigating a case of misconduct, thievery, discrimination, harassment, anything that does not include medical information, in the workplace, you may discuss anything you want with anyone you want. You not only may discuss the actions of one employee with another in this case, you'd be negligent if you didn't.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

I understand. Thank you.

Possibly, to the extent that you believe the fact that management's knowledge that the individuals live together and are related is enough to assume they should have been aware that these other two employees were capable of misconduct, theft, etc themselves (should something else occur in the workplace). Always better to be cautious and considering there is of course no illegality to questioning them or even taking adverse action (i.e. termination), it is certainly recommended that the OP takes appropriate action to address his/her concerns related to the other two employees. The 1st employee has no "confidentiality rights" in this situation.

Appropriate action will be taken, now that you have made things a bit clearer on that side.

Where is the $400 coming from? Why would there be any financial exposure in investigating this issue with the other two employees? You have financial liability by keeping them employed if they are the types of employees who would condone or possibly even participate in the type of misconduct that you described with the first employee.

$400/hr was in relation to Blue Meanies "pearls of wisdom"

Look, the others are telling you the truth. Absent a contract an employer can fire any employee, for any reason that is not protected by law (race, religion, gender etc).

So, the worst you are looking at if you fire employees 2 and 3 is that they will be able to collect unemployment. After all, you do not want to accuse them of stealing or abetting stealing without proof.

However, you also have to look at it from a business perspective as well. Is it in your business's best interest to fire these employees? If it were me, I would consider how long they had been employees vs how long the thief had been an employee. I would also look at how they were related.

If, for example 2 and 3 are married, long term employees and 1 is their son whom you only hired for the summer, then I would not assume that mom and dad had any knowledge at all that their son was stealing...again, example only.

2 are married, 1 is a relative if that helps makes things clearer.

 

[commentator]

Employers often have no better understanding of the law than their employees. But in this situation, if you fire the whole kit and caboodle of them, you may be on the hook for some unemployment benefits, which will raise your tax rates a little bit but frankly, if you believe that your employee was stealing from you with the knowledge of the other two, well, it's your decision to make. There is no "wrongful termination" or any sort of decision they can get from anywhere related to your firing them.

 

[cbg]

Please note:

I am not saying you SHOULD fire them - I am saying you COULD fire them.

I am attempting to make the point that there is NO confidentiality issue here. You MAY discuss the theft, ask questions about the theft, discuss one employee with another, discuss one employee's actions with another, regardless of whether they do or do not live together and you face no legal liability whatsoever. You can (up to you whether to do it it or not, but you CAN) fire the lot of them and the worst that could happen is that they get unemployment.

THERE ARE NO PRIVACY RIGHTS AND NO CONFIDENTIALITY LAWS THAT APPLY IN THIS SITUATION.

Are we quite clear on this now? Because if not, you can fork over that $400 you were so worried about to an attorney who will tell you the same thing I just did.