Posted on 11/12/2003 5:56:51 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
DES MOINES (AP) -- A former employee of Taco Bell has filed a lawsuit claiming his boss defamed him and humiliated him in front of a witness. James A. Egenberger, 22, filed a lawsuit in Polk County District Court against Taco Bell seeking damages for personal humiliation, embarrassment and emotion distress arising out of his September 2002 firing from a Taco Bell in West Des Moines. Court records show that store manager Randy Vinzant accused of Egenberger of being a thief in front of other employees and customers. Vinzant was later found to be responsible for $2,500 in store receipts that were missing and charged with second-degree theft, court records show. Police said Vinzant had stopped for a drink and lost part of restaurant's deposit at Prairie Meadows racetrack and casino. Egenberger's lawyer, Curt Krull, said the corporation failed to supervise Vinzant's supposed theft investigation in September 2002 and refused his client's request to take a lie-detector test. "Taco Bell had the opportunity to investigate this in a reasonable manner and didn't do it," Krull said. "Had Taco Bell done their job, my guy probably would have still been working there and would still have had a pretty good job." Laurie Schalow, Taco Bell spokeswoman, said the store has changed owners and management and that Egenberger must lodge his complaints against a former owner. "It's an issue between the old franchise owner and whoever filed the lawsuit," Schalow said.
The guy got a raw deal, but it seems to me that being fired by Taco Bell is kind of like being evicted from a dumpster.
That may be entirely true, however, being fired for theft can certainly affect your unemployment benefits and immediate future employment.
I'm sure they claim that, but if they're in any sort of management role vis-a-vis their franchisees, i.e., advice on how to run the store, they may find out they've just bit the big enchilada.
Truth is an absolute defense.
Yeah, except that Vinzant is the manager who accused the employee of stealing, so I don't see how that helps Taco Bell defend against the suit.
It looks like the boss accused an employee of stealing to cover up his own crime.
Hell, yes, there's a lawsuit there.
Taco Bell has no liability, but Vinzant surely does.
Unless Egenberger signed an agreement to indemnify Taco Bell, they may share some of the liability.
And give me one good reason why Taco Bell should have to pay anything in this case. Tell me what they did wrong.
Being a lawyer*, and having handled cases involving intentional or criminal acts by employees against fellow employees, I can tell you that you are mistaken, at least in all states that I am familiar with.
The courts look at whether of not the act was in the "course and scope of the employment" That is, did it have a substantial enough connection to the employment to create "respondeat superior" liability for the employer.
In this case, it appears that the accusation took place 1) on the restaurant premises, 2) during work hours 3) if front of co-employees 4) while the parties were acting in their roles of manager and employee and 5) concerned a theft of the employers money.
This is a very strong case for the managers act of defamation having been in the course and scope of the manager's employment, thus creating liability for the franchisee corporation (not Taco Bell, which is a separate issue altogether.)
*None of the following is intended as legal advice, and should not be construed as such!
Doesn't this pretty much say it all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.