Post-Employment Review: Do Former Employers Check for Additional Theft After Firing?

The decision to conduct a post-employment review, specifically to investigate whether a fired employee has engaged in additional theft, is often influenced by the severity of the initial incident, the company's policies, and the potential impact on the business. In this article, we will explore the typical practices of employers in such situations.

Common Practices in Post-Employment Reviews

When an employee is fired for stealing, it is not uncommon for employers to scrutinize the individual's past behavior and any previous incidents of theft. This can involve reviewing company records, monitoring surveillance footage, and interviewing other employees.

The Severity of the Initial Incident

The likelihood of an employer investigating for additional thefts typically correlates with the severity of the initial incident. For minor infractions, such as a small amount of office supplies, employers may not seek further clarification. However, if the theft involved significant assets or fiduciary responsibilities, such as customer credit or banking information, the employer may delve deeper to protect the company's interests.

Company Policies and Industry Standards

The specific procedures and policies regarding investigations can vary widely between companies and industries. Factors such as company size, industry regulations, and the nature of the business itself influence the level of scrutiny companies are willing to apply. For instance, in industries dealing with high-value assets, such as solar installations or financial services, thorough reviews are more likely to be conducted.

The Role of Law Enforcement

In some cases, if the initial theft is deemed serious enough, the employer may report the incident to law enforcement. This can trigger a broader investigation and may involve multiple agencies, such as the police, the U.S. Marshalls, and other relevant authorities.

The Likelihood of Further Investigation

The likelihood of further investigation largely depends on whether the powers that be are confident that the employee has stolen more items of high value. In many instances, once the initial incident is addressed, there is no need for further scrutiny, especially if the stolen items are not of significant value.

However, in cases where the initial charge was relatively minor and more thefts are suspected, employers and victims are more likely to continue the investigation. For example, if an employee is fired for a single incident but it happens again within a short time frame, the employer is incentivized to investigate thoroughly to prevent further losses.

Empirical Examples

To illustrate these points, let’s consider two scenarios:

Solar Installation Theft

A head logistics worker and his helpers were caught stealing 5000 feet of 4/0 bare copper from a solar installation. Surveillance footage from previous jobs revealed missing copper issues, leading to a joint investigation by the U.S. Marshalls and Washington State Police.

Social Services Housing Support

Another case involved an employee fired for theft in the social services housing support area. Initially, one incident was documented. However, two weeks later, the individual was accused of five more counts of theft. This situation underscores the likelihood of further investigations, especially when the original charge was minor and additional incidents are suspected.

Conclusion

The decision to investigate for additional theft after firing an employee varies based on the severity of the initial offense, company policies, and the potential impact on the business. While major thefts often attract thorough investigations, minor incidents are less likely to trigger such actions unless there are significant suspicions of additional wrongdoing.

For those facing such situations, understanding the potential for further scrutiny is crucial in planning their future actions and decision-making.