It seems that a Walmart employee in Oregon had a habit of calling the cops on customers, making false claims about their actions, until one unjustly-persecuted customer had enough and raised some hell.
“The next day, Sheriff’s Sergeant Bryan White and another deputy met with the director of the Walmart and the assistant manager and explained that deputies had noticed a “pattern of behavior” in which [employee] would call police to report “dangerous active situations, such as customers physically assaulting him or other employees,” that were not happening.” Cite.
This seems like an overstep of the Sheriff’s authority to me. If an person is routinely carrying out a criminal act, or a criminal-adjacent act, that’s really not the business of his employer, is it? If he were stealing from the employer, sure. But in this case??
The story is primarily about how it was in fact the employer’s business, because it’s a story about the employer having to write a 7-figure check to one of the employee’s victims.
Their authority is to investigate/prosecute crimes, keep the peace, yada yada. I’m just not sure that “telling an employer that one of their employees sucks at his job” is within that authority.
…they didn’t tell his employer that he “sucked at his job.” They said they
In the course of an investigation into a potentially dangerous pattern of behaviour, it would be only right to put that to his employers, to see if they had noticed it as well. They were gathering evidence. And you can’t do that sometimes unless you tell them exactly what you are looking for.
And a lot of that evidence would probably be video from store security cameras, and fellow employees. So, yeah, this isn’t some random out-of-the-blue visit by the cops to his employers about something he did that was completely unrelated to work. The employers have a stake in this as well.
My question is, how had store management not already noticed multiple instances of police officers showing up in the store to respond to unruly customer calls? Seems like the kind of thing that would go in a log.
Was wondering that myself. Although, the article I cited says that Employee kept working there for several more months, so they must have turned a blind eye. That blind eye probably added a zero to the victim’s settlement check.
Walmart must have a policy for dealing with unruly or aggressive customers, and I’m pretty sure it’s not, “Call 911 as a first step and don’t bother to notify management.” He could have been fired for ignoring the policy, but I guess he’s somebody’s cousin or something.
The article also implies that his harassment was racially motivated and discriminatory- like maybe he was following black customers around and threatening them. I don’t see how this ISN’T the employer’s business, given that he was doing it at work.
Harassing people and falsely accusing people of committing crimes is a crime. This wasn’t about putting a frozen pizza in the same bag as a rotisserie chicken or charging someone for avocados when they were buying cabbage. The stuff this employee is alleged to have done is a lot more serious.
In most situations, I would say the OP is right. The police shouldn’t go to somebody’s employer to tell them about somebody’s interactions with the police.
But I’d say this particular case is the exception. Williams was doing this at his workplace so Walmart was involved and had a right to know what their employee was doing.