browski wrote:
This. Anyone who's worked retail knows that once they are out the door, there is nothing you can do.
While this may be a common store policy so as to create a clear bright line test or safe harbor of protection, it is not actually the law. The law, as established by the common law in most (but not all states), allows for detainment on or in the immediate vicinity of the premises. So, in most jurisdictions, detaining someone in a parking lot would be fine. But employers normally will limit their policy so it allows only for detainment within the store. They do this for a few reasons, including because it affords clear guidelines for employees and eliminates the risk of them exercising (or being deemed by a jury to have exercised) poor judgment as to what "immediate vicinity of " the premises means and because it is the easiest practical way to do things - once someone is outside of the store, chasing them down becomes a lot more dangerous.
As to the underlying story, I just don't know why people have so much trouble understanding why folks lose their jobs when they act in direct contravention of company policy. Bright line tests are only effective if they are consistently enforced. He wasn't really fired for stopping a felon, he was fired for acting in direct contravention to his training.
Of course, the story was updated today to note that (after the negative publicity arising from the story), they rehired the guy.
It absolutely sucks that people doing what is clearly the right thing can lose their job, but I suspect that some of those who are worked up about this guy losing his job are also worked up about NFL players protesting the national anthem and insist that those guys should save exercising their discretion as to when to contravene company policy for when they are off of the field.