Pregnant mother-of-three FIRED from Popeyes because she couldn't afford to pay back the $400 stolen during her shift by an armed gunman



If this is true, then Popeyes won't be getting my money anytime soon...

Quote:A pregnant Popeyes employee in Texas says that she was fired from her job at the fast food chain after being robbed and refusing to personally pay back the money that was stolen.

Marissa Holcomb, who is five months pregnant with her fourth child, was held at up at the fried chicken chain store in Channelview on March 31.

A man armed with a handgun and his face concealed by a red beanie ran into the store and jumped the counter, forcing Holcomb to empty the registers before making off with $400.

However afterwards, Holcomb, shaken by the experience, was given an ultimatum by her managers - replace what was taken or lose her job.

'I just had a gun to me. I'm not paying the money,' Holcomb told KHOU.

'I don't think it's right because now I'm struggling for my family because what I had to do to keep my life.

'I mean who's gonna call me? I'm five months pregnant.

'The fact that I got robbed at gunpoint and it's like nobody cares.'

Holcomb says she was fired less than two days after the incident.

A Popeyes spokesman told KHOU that Holcomb was fired for having too much money in the till.

They also said it wasn't the first time Holcomb hadn't cleared the till.

However Holcomb claims she had done her job properly, and that it was an extremely busy night.

The chain were offering a popular two piece chicken special for $1.19 on the night of the robbery.

'They got what they got because that's what we made within one hour,' she said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...shift.html

Somewhat off-topic, but I really do hate how news stories play up any sympathetic angle in order to increase viewership, even if it has absolutely nothing to do with the story itself. SHARK ATTACK AMPUTEE SURVIVOR FIRED FOR BEING ROBBED!

I agree this is bad news, and I can guarantee Popeyes corporate is acting quickly before this gets plastered everywhere. You want the employee to pay back the money that was robbed bc she didn't empty the till when she was supposed to? That's not how that works. If you have a problem with her performance, you fire her. In no way do you offer her the option to "Pay the money back" because, while IANAL, I'm pretty sure that leaves you open to all sorts of employment litigation. Basically, as far as I understand it and those more knowledgeable can chime in, you don't ever make employment contingent upon an employee paying back their breakage/waste/etc. If they did something wrong when that occurred, you fire them for *that*. If not, you write it off as a loss of doing business, put it in the books for future use, and go on. Plus it's only $400? JFC people, come on.

I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I guess this is one company that expects employees to fight robbers before giving up the cash.

(04-22-2015 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I know, I thought the same, but unless there is evidence to support that, I'd hold off. She does claim it was busy, and quite frankly if she's setting up the robbery, I doubt she does it when it's busy. More chance that something goes wrong or gets caught.

My comment still stands though, the managers are opening up themselves to major litigation by allowing her to pay back the till or be fired. Corporate will have their asses regardless.

(04-22-2015 05:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I know, I thought the same, but unless there is evidence to support that, I'd hold off. She does claim it was busy, and quite frankly if she's setting up the robbery, I doubt she does it when it's busy. More chance that something goes wrong or gets caught.

My comment still stands though, the managers are opening up themselves to major litigation by allowing her to pay back the till or be fired. Corporate will have their asses regardless.

She wont win a lawsuit because she was fired. It was her job to limit the exposure of cash lost due to a robbery. She didnt do that. She is fired for that reason. They gave her the option to keep her job if she replaced the lost cash. But she wasnt fired for refusing to pay the money back. She was fired because she exposed the company to losses they shouldnt have been exposed to, and quite frankly, exposed other employees and customers to harm by creating a situation where a robbery was more likely to take place.

But with saying that, I would still want to know the situation during that time. If they were overly busy because of a lack of staff, thats on the manager. It wasnt like this was some rush out of the blue, they were running a marketing campaign.

Still the best chicken anywhere.

(04-22-2015 06:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I know, I thought the same, but unless there is evidence to support that, I'd hold off. She does claim it was busy, and quite frankly if she's setting up the robbery, I doubt she does it when it's busy. More chance that something goes wrong or gets caught.

My comment still stands though, the managers are opening up themselves to major litigation by allowing her to pay back the till or be fired. Corporate will have their asses regardless.

She wont win a lawsuit because she was fired. It was her job to limit the exposure of cash lost due to a robbery. She didnt do that. She is fired for that reason. They gave her the option to keep her job if she replaced the lost cash. But she wasnt fired for refusing to pay the money back. She was fired because she exposed the company to losses they shouldnt have been exposed to, and quite frankly, exposed other employees and customers to harm by creating a situation where a robbery was more likely to take place.

But with saying that, I would still want to know the situation during that time. If they were overly busy because of a lack of staff, thats on the manager. It wasnt like this was some rush out of the blue, they were running a marketing campaign.

You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. The facts are had she paid the money, she would have a job. Therefore, her job required her to cover losses sustained by that company. When you're fired, you're not done so on contingency, you're simply fired. Them telling her to pay or get fired violates the Fair Labor Standards Act if it puts her under the hourly minimum wage, for instance.

(04-22-2015 06:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I know, I thought the same, but unless there is evidence to support that, I'd hold off. She does claim it was busy, and quite frankly if she's setting up the robbery, I doubt she does it when it's busy. More chance that something goes wrong or gets caught.

My comment still stands though, the managers are opening up themselves to major litigation by allowing her to pay back the till or be fired. Corporate will have their asses regardless.

She wont win a lawsuit because she was fired. It was her job to limit the exposure of cash lost due to a robbery. She didnt do that. She is fired for that reason. They gave her the option to keep her job if she replaced the lost cash. But she wasnt fired for refusing to pay the money back. She was fired because she exposed the company to losses they shouldnt have been exposed to, and quite frankly, exposed other employees and customers to harm by creating a situation where a robbery was more likely to take place.

But with saying that, I would still want to know the situation during that time. If they were overly busy because of a lack of staff, thats on the manager. It wasnt like this was some rush out of the blue, they were running a marketing campaign.

You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. The facts are had she paid the money, she would have a job. Therefore, her job required her to cover losses sustained by that company. When you're fired, you're not done so on contingency, you're simply fired. Them telling her to pay or get fired violates the Fair Labor Standards Act if it puts her under the hourly minimum wage, for instance.

Would it have been better if the restaurant would have fired her and been done with it? I read this same story on USA Today where this was not her first violation of this policy of keeping the excess cash out of the drawers. As cruel as it appears on the surface, giving her the option to pay money to keep a job is more humane than a pink slip with no other consideration. If Popeyes had medical benefits that her family used, then...

(04-22-2015 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Still the best chicken anywhere.

I'm still upset that Popeyes entered The Houston market at the expense of Frenchy 's.

I'll take them over most other chains, though.

(04-22-2015 07:10 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:01 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 05:45 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  I wouldnt jump to conclusions just yet.

These procedures dealing with cash are put in place for a reason. One of the reasons is that some employees would coordinate with others and tell them when to rob the place. If the cash in the tills are always limited, the employees know this, and the racket is less likely to happen. And even if it does happen, the hit is limited. But if you have tills that are cash heavy, even just for an hour or two every month, at some point in time you are going to get hit right at the moment the till is overflowing. It was her job to ensure the exposure was a minimum. With limited cash, thee is no incentive for an insider coordinated hit, and if they just get randomly hit, the amoun of money lost is limited.

What i would like to know is how many employees were there during that "busy hour". If she was by herself, and they were slammed due to a marketing campaign, and the management failed to have enough staff for her to manage the till and help the customers, thats one thing. I just doubt that happened, because Popeyes knows that would become public.

I know, I thought the same, but unless there is evidence to support that, I'd hold off. She does claim it was busy, and quite frankly if she's setting up the robbery, I doubt she does it when it's busy. More chance that something goes wrong or gets caught.

My comment still stands though, the managers are opening up themselves to major litigation by allowing her to pay back the till or be fired. Corporate will have their asses regardless.

She wont win a lawsuit because she was fired. It was her job to limit the exposure of cash lost due to a robbery. She didnt do that. She is fired for that reason. They gave her the option to keep her job if she replaced the lost cash. But she wasnt fired for refusing to pay the money back. She was fired because she exposed the company to losses they shouldnt have been exposed to, and quite frankly, exposed other employees and customers to harm by creating a situation where a robbery was more likely to take place.

But with saying that, I would still want to know the situation during that time. If they were overly busy because of a lack of staff, thats on the manager. It wasnt like this was some rush out of the blue, they were running a marketing campaign.

You're trying to make a distinction where none exists. The facts are had she paid the money, she would have a job. Therefore, her job required her to cover losses sustained by that company. When you're fired, you're not done so on contingency, you're simply fired. Them telling her to pay or get fired violates the Fair Labor Standards Act if it puts her under the hourly minimum wage, for instance.

Would it have been better if the restaurant would have fired her and been done with it? I read this same story on USA Today where this was not her first violation of this policy of keeping the excess cash out of the drawers. As cruel as it appears on the surface, giving her the option to pay money to keep a job is more humane than a pink slip with no other consideration. If Popeyes had medical benefits that her family used, then...

From a liability standpoint, I'm pretty sure it would. It's also just not a logical way to treat someone who they're claiming should be fired. If an employer is truly willing to fire her for negligence or because she is too much of a liability with the responsibilities she's granted, her ability to pay for some loss has no bearing on those facts and therefore should have no bearing on her employment.

It's more accurately a way to milk some of your costs from a desperate employee than anything else from a legitimate business perspective. Because if you're willing to keep her hired when she pays back the money, what she did was inherently not worthy of ending her employment.

(04-22-2015 07:13 PM)I45owl Wrote:  

(04-22-2015 06:04 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Still the best chicken anywhere.

I'm still upset that Popeyes entered The Houston market at the expense of Frenchy 's.

I'll take them over most other chains, though.

Publix deli FTW.

well, my facebook page with 1300 followers just shared the story, and I asked that everyone read and share it.

(04-22-2015 08:34 PM)DexterDevil Wrote:  well, my facebook page with 1300 followers just shared the story, and I asked that everyone read and share it.

Good for you. I called the Popeyes contact number and a live person took my report on this injustice. Regardless as some have said that she may not have followed procedure, to fire a pregnant women who had just gone through the ordeal of having a gun pointed at her in a robbery, is just cold hearted and wrong.

Publix Deli is pretty amazing. I will eat the **** out their sandwiches.

(04-22-2015 09:16 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Publix Deli is pretty amazing. I will eat the **** out their sandwiches.

Publix is awesome. Don't have them where I live, but when I go to Destin I always shop there. The Deli is very good. Love their bread.

Publix is awesome.

There's an update to the story. This was a franchise restaurant. Popeyes corporate came down on them and they are offering her $2000 in back pay and her job back. The franchise owner should have made sure to be there or to have someone there who could man the tills during the heavy marketing period. Procedures for cash handling have to be adhered to, but the employees must also be given the ability to follow the procedures.

I like Publix - they had Shiner when I lived in Atlanta. I had no idea about the deli, though.

chicken little says the sky is __________

holy gizzards batman.....the things people worry about.....

(04-22-2015 09:46 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Publix is awesome.

There's an update to the story. This was a franchise restaurant. Popeyes corporate came down on them and they are offering her $2000 in back pay and her job back. The franchise owner should have made sure to be there or to have someone there who could man the tills during the heavy marketing period. Procedures for cash handling have to be adhered to, but the employees must also be given the ability to follow the procedures.

That is great news. She should never have been fired.