Wrongfuly Accused of Stealing and Fired for It

[MusicRockGirl16]

My question involves labor and employment law for the state of: Colorado.
I was employed by King Soopers and origanaly worked in the deli department. About a week after I started I was told to cover for someone in produce for a few days. By the time i started working in the deli again the manager said i wasn't getting the hang of it fast enough and transferd me to bag/carts person (courtesy cleark) and cut my pay some. Three weeks later I was called into the conference room where the assistant manager and two security guys were and accused me of stealing a $2 sandwich and I denyed it. they continued to accuse me for ten mins and then said their going to call the cops if I don't admit it and i figure if they didn't belive me then the cops wouldn't belive me eather so I admitted it. They also never showed me any proof and they said they had a witness that said they saw me put the sandwich in my purse and that it was sticking out as i left the store(BS). They suspended me for 3 days. Then when i went in for my meeting they fired me and now I have to pay a $250 Civil Restitution fee. and after the fact i went back in and asked to see the proof and the manager said "we don't have to do that". What should I do? What happens if I don't pay the $250 on time? And is paying for it another way of addmitence incase I wanted to take and leagal action?

[PattyPA]

They don't have to show you the evidence and you never should have admitted taking the sandwich if you didn't take it.

Who is communicating this "restitution" amount to you? The employer or the employer's attorney? Or someone else?

[MusicRockGirl16]

The employer was the one that gave me the form that states the amount.

[PattyPA]

My gut reaction is to ignore the letter, they'll trying to bluff you. Does it say what they will do if you don't pay? File a police report? For a $2 sandwich? The police will ask them what their evidence is and if that's all they have, will laugh them out of the police station. But you did admit it (you didn't answer my question as to WHY you admitted it if you didn't do it). So, send them $2.

Having said that, you do NOT have a cause for legal action, based on what you have posted. It is not illegal to fire an employee for suspicion of stealing, even if they are wrong.

[cyjeff]

My gut reaction is to ignore the letter, they'll trying to bluff you. Does it say what they will do if you don't pay? File a police report? For a $2 sandwich? The police will ask them what their evidence is and if that's all they have, will laugh them out of the police station. But you did admit it (you didn't answer my question as to WHY you admitted it if you didn't do it). So, send them $2.

Having said that, you do NOT have a cause for legal action, based on what you have posted. It is not illegal to fire an employee for suspicion of stealing, even if they are wrong.

And, especially, after they admit it.

[PattyPA]

And, especially, after they admit it.

Agree. Admitting theft because the OP "didn't think the police would believe him" is, IMHO, unwise to say the least. If you didn't do it, why would say you did? Just doesn't make sense.

[Security Consultant]

[QUOTE=PattyPA;443389]
My gut reaction is to ignore the letter, they'll trying to bluff you. [QUOTE] Patty - about ignoring the letter. The employer does not need to call the police, file a charge, or obtain a conviction in order for them to serve her (and peruse) a Civil Demand. That's just what they did - based on her admission. This is treated the same as if she were a "shoplifter" and not an employee. I suggest the company will pursue the matter civilly if she fails to pay. BTW - King Soopers is known for following through with Civil Demand actions.

[PattyPA]

Security Consultant, that's interesting information. Can you explain more the legal justification for a company demanding a payment of more than 100 times the amount the individual admitted to taking? Seriously, I'd like to know. What legal recourse could the company take if s/he doesn't pay?

[Security Consultant]

Patty - The legal justification is contained within Colorado statute 3-21-107.5, Civil Damages for loss caused by theft. In part: (C)(2) An adult or an emancipated minor who takes possession of any merchandise from any mercantile establishment without the consent of the owner, without paying the purchase price, and with the intention of converting such merchandise to his own use or who alters the price indicia of any merchandise shall be civilly liable to the owner for actual damages plus a penalty payable to the owner of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars.

Al 50 States have a Civil Restitution (Civil Demand) statute.

[PattyPA]

Wow! Guess I won't be shoplifting in the near future.

They don't have to get a judgment or anything?