Marvin Olasky offers two cheers for John Calvin on the Reformer's 500th birthday. Fired for bravery
By most accounts, Mark Beverly would be considered a hero. Back in March, the overnight shift supervisor at a SuperAmerica in Roseville, Minn., came to a co-worker’s aid after she was accosted by a masked robber. Beverly tussled with the intruder until he fled the store with about $15. After calling police and reviewing security tapes with store managers, Beverly completed his shift, business as usual. But the next day he was fired.
Marathon Petroleum Company, the owner of the SuperAmerica chain, said Beverly was told what to do in the company handbook – which advises employees to “cooperate: don’t argue, resist or attack the robber” – and through a computer-based training program Beverly was required to complete when he was hired.
“He endangered himself and her, and that’s why we have the policy,” said Linda Casey, a Marathon spokeswoman. “And we have enforced it with other employees, not just with him.”
But firing an employee for coming to another’s aid? Isn’t that a bit extreme?
back to top25 Comments to “Fired for bravery”
No retail store cash register contents is worth being beaten up. Yes, he prevented a robbery and minimized the injuries of the other employee. But will some maggot lawyer or chiropractor convince this man that his knee or back pain is resultant from defending the shop.
If the HR folks did their job right, this fellow probably signed a statement: “I understand that I must under no circumstances offer resistance to any armed robbers. I understand I will be fired if I elect to do so.”
I’d rather beat up a gunman and be thanked by the other employees family than abide by company SOP get a pittance reward or bonus for permitting some brute to attack her unhampered
Report comment to moderator
I think the only place where you are now encouraged to offer violent resistance to criminals is airliners.
Report comment to moderator
Lawyers and accountants will be the death of western civilization.
We truly have become a Nation of Cowards.
Report comment to moderator
One can only pray that giving this story presstime will encourage someone else to hire this guy. I’d hire him. He’s a decent man.
Report comment to moderator
Where does this mentality come from? Why is it that you’re supposed to stand by why bad things happen? Don’t help a co-worker who is being assaulted, just stand by and watch, and be thankful it’s not you. Never mind that you could help end it, just play coward. It’s the same with schools. Quick lock the door and hide under your desk. Which does what exactly to save you from a gunmen? Why stand by and allow more injury and death? At least if they’re busy with you, they’re not shooting some kids hiding under desks. I just don’t get it.
Report comment to moderator
The way this post reads, it sounds like the robber attacked a female coworker of Beverly’s, and he helped her. But the full story at the link says she was not attacked. Based on that, an argument could be made that he reacted too hastily and recklessly.
Still, if he really thought she was in danger, he was right to intervene.
Report comment to moderator
They should just put up a sign: “No Resistance Will Be Offered to Armed Robbers.”
Imagine that. Now imagine a store across the street with a sign saying “Cashier Has Less Than $50 Cash. He Also Has a Gun And Knows How To Use It.”
As a robber, my choice is clear.
Report comment to moderator
OK Stephen,
Maybe he was a little hasty. But, think about it for a minute. You hear the female co-worker scream, you come out and see a man in a mask in close proximty to her, what do you do? Do stand there and wait, or do you simply react? Usually when a woman screams, and there’s a man in a mask, it’s a good bet that bad things are happening, or are about to happen. I still think he did the right thing.
Report comment to moderator
I think he did the right thing in reacting to what he perceived as an attack on his co-worker. (He was defending her, not the cash register.) In retrospect, his action may not have been needed, as it appears the robber was simply trying to grab money – but I don’t think we want to squelch the impulse to protect, especially out of fear that one’s actions may be misconstrued.
I understand the company’s need to see that their policies are followed. But surely they could have used some disciplinary measure less severe than firing.
Report comment to moderator
Ah, here’s the slogan… “Corporate Cowardice: Standing Up for Mediocrity in the Workplace”.
You gotta love it.
Report comment to moderator
I disagree with the company’s policy.
But I suppose it helps protect some employees.
And the company.
I also disagree with this post’s headline.
I thought he was fired for violating company policy.
Disclaimer: I’ve been wrong before.
Report comment to moderator
I just sent an e-mail to Marathon telling them I intend to shop elsewhere. I think this man was treated shamefully.
Report comment to moderator
StuBob: The company’s policy is wise and decent. A couple of bucks in the till is simply not worth ANY human life, including that of the clerk, the robber, other personnel, customers, and the child outside the window who gets killed by the stray bullet fired by a teen-aged John Wayne wannabe.
Ony someone with extremely high regard for money and greed or disregard for human life can justify advocating risking human life for the protection of such small amounts.
Report comment to moderator
I would think this depends on the exact situation, which I don’t know. It would be instinctual for someone to want to keep harm from another. There is no way of knowing before hand if someone is going to just rob you or if something worse is about to happen. You do have instances where further violence happens. Should you wait to see? How long do you wait, after they tie everyone up? Maybe the company needs to write down each step to take after criminals enter the place. Human beings are not machines.
My sister’s credit union was robbed while she was there. It was very scary and took quite awhile to get over. Their policy was also to let the money go. I agree with the policy, but if my sister had tried to defend someone,(and she would have the heart to do so) I would be very angry if they fired her.
Report comment to moderator
I understand the reason for the policy, but firing seems a bit extreme. Isn’t this the kind of guy you would WANT on your payroll? One that would help another human being without worry for himself? He wasn’t defending the money, but his coworker. If you must, give him a week off without pay, but firing is silly.
Report comment to moderator
If Mr. Beverly genuinely believed his coworker to be in danger, then his behavior was appropriate. The policy of cooperation is in place to protect workers from harm, not to force others to stand idly by when someone is already being harmed.
The article suggests that the tapes do not backup the manager’s contention that the clerk was being attacked. If it is possible that he simply misread the situation due to ambiguious circumstances, he should at worst receive a lesser punishment than firing.
If he overreacted in a dangerous way, the firing is appropriate. His supervisors would be in the best position to evaluate.
Report comment to moderator
If a co-worker was “accosted,” then he may have endangered her and himself more if he had refused to resist the robber. But I don’t know the details. Was the masked man armed? With what?
I might also have tried to stop the him too if I thought I could. Frankly, I trust my judgment more than policies based only on hypotheticals and theories. And my judgment may well have kept me from trying to resist him. I don’t know.
And I am willing to live with the consequences of doing what I believe to be the right thing.
Another think I don’t know is what all the robber had in mind. Only the masked robber knew that. Was this a HATE crime or a GREED crime? Maybe it was both. Maybe he was seeking to hurt others as much as to take money. Who knows? Hate crimes do happen, you know.
Whether it was a greed crime or a hate crime, the defender should be given some benefit of the doubt in reacting. However, being the all-knowing critic (from our places of safety) is more tempting to people today than anything.
There is no way the defender should be fired.
Report comment to moderator
Mark Roth (11): I also disagree with this post’s headline.
I thought he was fired for violating company policy.
Frank: Yeah, I noticed that, too.
A couple of weeks ago, a WMBlog post discussed a Houston, TX high school senior who was removed from her prom in handcuffs (then immediately released) when she refused to leave after arriving in a “dress” that violated the school’s published prom dress code.
Many of the stories online had headlines like “Girl arrested for skimpy prom dress.” I had to point out that she was arrested for refusing to leave (and making a scene) after arriving in a skimpy prom dress.
Still, headlines are, by definition, short and punchy and designed to get you to read the article.
Any suggested headlines that meet the criteria both for accuracy and brevity here?
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I remember the headlines after the student in Florida became unruly at a John Kerry speech.
“Student Tazered for Asking Question”
No, he was tazered because he kepr pulling away from the police and jumping around. The police escorted him out because he exceeded his time limit and wouldn’t stand down. He had already asked several questions and wasn’t actually listening to any answers.
Report comment to moderator
It’s a stupid policy if you ask me. The company is stating by their actions that his violation, according to policy, was grounds for immediate termination. Zero tolerance. Where my own life is concerned, or the life of someone else, I don’t want some company telling that I can’t act in defense of myself or them if I deem the situation is appropriate for that. If he really did err in judgment, why fire him? Review the circumstances and discuss the wisdom of this or that action and how being under pressure can change your decision making. Wouldn’t you rather have an employee who’s grown in wisdom through experience? What’s up with this “zero tolerance”/no second chances policies these days?
Report comment to moderator
It seems to me that their basic policy is wise. But it seems UNWISE to let potential robbers see so clearly how strongly they take their policy. (”Free money. Come and get it; we won’t stop you.”) And it seems particularly unwise to fire a man not for protecting the money, but for protecting a co-worker. I think this decision will hurt them–and may result in more robberies.
Report comment to moderator
“cooperate: don’t argue, resist or attack the robber”
I would say that under certain circumstances, complying with this rule may be a very bad idea. Sort of like lying down like sheep for muslim airline terrorists. Would Marathon management fire an employee regardless of the circumstances?
This is a reminder to ask to review the employee handbook BEFORE accepting a position at a company.
Report comment to moderator
Perhaps, instead of raking the employer over the coals we should focus our wrath on a legal system that allows people to sue at the drop of a hat.
If the female employee was injured in the incident, she could sue her employer for the actions of the other employee. This has happened many, many times, and the employer has been found liable. So who can blame employers for putting a “no interference” clause in their employee handbook. In fact, many times it’s not even the employer’s choice to have the policy. The liability carrier requires it.
Nearly all retailers, particularly in the fast food and convenience store category have a “no interference” policy for practical and financial reasons. Given the highly litigious country we live in, I can’t say as I blame them for having the policy. And as I said, it’s likely that SuperAmerica’s liability carrier mandated the “no interference” clause.
Pity SuperAmerica. No matter what they do in a case like this, they’re screwed.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (23): Perhaps, instead of raking the employer over the coals we should focus our wrath on a legal system that allows people to sue at the drop of a hat.
Frank: Yup. (See my observation at (3) above.)
Report comment to moderator
Caution:
No discernment allowed
Rules only
reminds me of Sunday School
Report comment to moderator