She wasn’t fired for shoplifting, she was fired for lying.
I won’t defend her on the thefts of course.
That said, 40 year old shoplifting charges for small amounts when you were stupid and young, should not disqualify you for a job you’ve got 40 years down the road. Especially one you are doing well in and the employer has not found you are doing any criminal acts against them.
I understand the stigma associated with criminal records is there for a reason and certain jobs do require spotless records but most don’t. Shoplifting charges from 40 years ago shouldn’t tank a person’s job unless the company believes or has evidence the person is involved in criminal acts against the company now.
When I first saw this I made a wild-ass-guess that this is a back door method to get rid of employees that are close to retirement.
40 yearold shoplifting charge?
Just plain foolish. It doesn’t matter how much you want to lean on the “it’s the rules” excuse, this was a shallow reason to fire a good employee. I can only imagine some 29 year old middle management rube doing something like this.
I wonder if this is part of the Dodd/Frank law.
This woman is screwed. She was fired and is not eligible to be re-hired. Gonna’ be tough finding a new job. But Wells-Fargo will only state her employment dates and may say she isn’t available for re-hire. The woman is the one who told the world she’d been fired.
What was the status of an 18 yr. old girl in Wis. 40 yrs. ago?
Would it matter if she was charged as a minor in these cases?
This is Bank of America, so whatever it is, they’re probably in the wrong.