Search form

‘Shoplifting and No Apprehension’ Policy Vulnerable to Whistleblower Claims, Illinois Court Finds

By Paul Patten
  • December 8, 2015

A retail employer is liable under the Illinois Whistleblower Act (“IWA”) when it terminates an employee for violating its “shoplifting and no apprehension” policy prohibiting employees from calling law enforcement directly about suspected shoplifting, an Illinois federal court has found. Coffey v. DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. a/k/a DSW, Inc., No. 14 C 4365 (Oct. 29, 2015).

Under the IWA, employers are prohibited from retaliating against employees who report unlawful activity — committed by anyone — which they have reasonable cause to believe is occurring or has taken place, to a government or law enforcement agency.

Coffey provides incentive for retailers and other employers to revisit handbook and policies on reporting illegal conduct.

Background

The plaintiff, Melissa Coffey, worked as an assistant store manager for DSW Shoe Warehouse. During her employment, one of Coffey’s subordinates informed her that a group of women, who the subordinate suspected of shoplifting in the past, had returned to the store that day. Coffey responded by announcing through her walkie-talkie, which connected her to all employees in the store, “I think we’re going to call the police.” A store employee, who heard Coffey’s announcement, took it as a directive and called the police. Police arrived, did a “walk-through” of the store, but did not make an arrest.

DSW subsequently terminated Coffey for violating its shoplifting and no apprehension policy, which prohibited employees from calling law enforcement, mall security, or third parties to respond to suspected theft. The policy included the following:

Under no circumstances is law enforcement, mall security or any other third party to be called to notify or respond to a suspected shoplifting/theft incident. If special circumstances exist (such as a high dollar theft, grab and run, etc.), immediately contact your RLPM [Regional Loss Prevention Manager] for direction. The RLPM is the only individual who may authorize an exception. This authorization must be obtained prior to any call to law enforcement.

Coffey claimed her termination violated the IWA.

Decision

The court granted Coffey’s motion for summary judgment, finding the IWA applicable to retaliatory discharges based on reports of employer misconduct or third party misconduct (here, reporting suspected customer theft). Coffey’s termination, based on her violation of DSW’s policy, the court found, constituted retaliatory discharge.

Among its conclusions, the court found:

  1. under the IWA, a whistleblower may directly or through another person, inform a governmental agency of unlawful conduct;
  2. the IWA protects whistleblowers who report employer misconduct or third-party misconduct;
  3. the IWA protects whistleblowers who report what they reasonably believe to be unlawful conduct;
  4. Coffey engaged in protected activity by indirectly informing the police of suspected customer theft; and
  5. her subsequent termination for violating DSW’s policy constituted retaliatory discharge.

Employer Policies

Although the court did not expressly find DSW’s policy in violation of the IWA, the statutory language appears to prohibit such policies.

Under the IWA, employers are prohibited from making policies “preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency….” 740 ILCS 174/10. However, the IWA is not clear as to whether an employer faces any monetary damages for having, but never enforcing, a policy prohibiting employees from directly reporting criminal activity to law enforcement.

The safest course may be to eliminate such “chain of command” criminal reporting requirements, thereby minimizing the likelihood that an unwary supervisor would discipline an employee for directly reporting criminal activity to law enforcement.

Please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have any questions about this case, its implications, or any other workplace issues.

©2015 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire Prohibits Gender Identity Discrimination

June 13, 2018

New Hampshire became the 20th state in the country to prohibit discrimination of all forms based upon gender identity when Governor Chris Sununu signed House Bill 1319 into law on June 8, 2018. The law goes into effect on July 8, 2018. House Bill 1319 adds “gender identity” to the list of protected classes under the New Hampshire Law... Read More

June 8, 2018

New Jersey Closer to Bar on Jury Waivers, Arbitration Agreements, Secrecy of Harassment Settlements

June 8, 2018

The New Jersey Senate has passed a bill that would prohibit jury waivers and agreements that conceal the details of discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. § 10:5-1, et seq. (LAD). The bill, which passed by a vote of 34-1, also would call into question the enforceability of agreements to arbitrate... Read More

June 7, 2018

Employment-at-Will Comes to Puerto Rico?

June 7, 2018

Puerto Rico’s Financial Oversight and Management Board and Governor Ricardo Rosselló have sent bills to the Puerto Rico legislature to repeal the Unjust Dismissal Act, Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976 (Act 80). If either bill is enacted, employers in Puerto Rico will no longer be required to have “just cause” to dismiss employees hired for an... Read More

Related Practices