Opinion ID: 486931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Yeah, he brought back the empty bags with the deposit slips in them.

Text: 44 Q. He never saw your husband walk out of there with a bag full of cash? 45 A. No, no. 46 Q. When your husband came back into the store with the empty bag, and you say Mr. Arnett was standing there smiling at you, did you ever say to Mr. Arnett, Oh, by the way, my husband has been making these deposits, it's okay, isn't it? 47 A. No, I didn't ever say that to him. 48 Q. You never mentioned to Mr. Arnett that your husband was making deposits? 49 A. No. I didn't mention it to him because I figured if he--he would have written me up or something or warned me if I was doing something wrong. 50 Q. Exactly. You didn't mention it to him because you were afraid he would warn you? 51 A. No, I mean, I don't care. If he would have written me up, I would have quit it. I mean I wouldn't--but he didn't write me up. Didn't say nothing to me. 52 Q. Of course, if he misunderstood what was going on there, he wouldn't say anything to you? 53 A. I guess not. 54 On March 22, 1983 and thereafter, subsequent to closing store 551 and the discharge of all employees that had been assigned to that outlet, the Company, in an effort to prevent a reoccurrence of the exhorbitant cash and inventory losses incurred at that location, conducted a series of instructional meetings for its store managers. The thrust of the meetings was to discuss future practices and procedures to reduce and eliminate future cash and inventory shrinkage. Supervisory personnel attempted to impress upon store managers and employees the necessity for vigilence in detecting and reporting dishonest employees and the need to conscientiously implement Company rules and regulations addressing cash management and inventory controls. During the course of these meetings, individual store managers voiced concerns they experienced in dealing with indolent and intractible employees of long-standing who had become indifferent and fixed in their ways in performing their duties and antagonistic to direction and change. It was within this climate that Royster and Becky Abell (Abell) were attributed with incriminating age discriminatory declarations, i.e. ... get rid of the older employees ..., set older employees up, and old bitches upon which statements the majority opinion has heavily relied to support its conclusion that the dialogue reflected a general attitude of the defendant to discriminate against employees within the protected class. In considering such remarks, I agree with the majority's statement that ... such remarks should not always be discounted entirely, depending on the context in which they are made. Viewing the controversial statements in the context of the exchange, I am unable to ascribe to the meaning adopted by the majority. In reviewing the record, it is apparent that the phrase that all managers should get rid of the older employees ... and the people that are stealing was not age-related, but, rather, descriptive of employment longevity with the Company, namely, employment seniority with the Company. The pertinent testimony provided by the plaintiff's witnesses disclosed the following: 55 A. The reason they had the meeting is a lot of things were discussed about problems because the Plainville store had closed and they had the big shortage there and they were discussing different things that the managers maybe would have some problems with the employees and many things were discussed, but one thing in particular he said, get rid of the older people and also the people that are stealing. When he said that, I took it to mean older people in age and not older people with the company. THE COURT: 56 Now, may I see counsel, please. At Side Bar: Mr. Lips, I don't want to get sucked into something either intentionally or unintentionally. Part of that answer is inadmissible but you didn't object. 57 My concern is that at an appeal, you would point out that you did object. I let her answer. Part of the answer is inadmissible. The last part is clearly inadmissible. What she understood it to mean. She may testify what somebody said and that's all she can do. 58    THE COURT: 59 What the man said was admissible. Her interpretation of what he meant is not admissible. Do I understand that you are now objecting? MR. LIPS: 60 I'm now objecting, not only that, I'm going to deal with it on cross if you don't strike the testimony. THE COURT: 61 I'm going to strike the testimony. I didn't wish to be maneuvered into a position where you let that in and it's obviously error. 62 Additional testimony developed by the plaintiff confirmed that Royster's characterization older employees was not age-related but rather descriptive of employee seniority with the Company and the intractibility of such senior employees to implement changing Company policy. 63 A. At the managers' meeting, that's right after Mary got fired, and he said that Mary wouldn't change with the company policies, that she was too set in her ways and too old fashioned. John, he would comment in there too on that she wouldn't--that she was too old fashioned and just about the same as Ira would and that if any of the other managers would be--wouldn't change with the policies, even if they had been there for awhile, then that they would be let go too, just like Mary. 64    65 Q. What did you say and what did he say? 66 A. He come in and told me that they did have to let Mary go that morning and he was consulting with me because he knew that I knew her for a long time, that I was close to her and that he was saying about the same thing then that they said at the managers' meeting, that, you know, she was too set in her ways, she wouldn't change, she was too old fashioned, that's why they had to let her go. 67    68 Q. Who was present? 69 A. It was the managers of the Ohio stores, myself, Betty Friedman, Doris Klein, there's two other managers, Leslie Thompson and Norma--I can't remember her last name. 70 Q. Was any representative from top management there? 71
72 Q. What did Mr. Royster say at the meeting? 73    74 A. He was assuring us managers what had happened to John Arnett, John Arnett had been let go from the company and him being our supervisor, we were wondering what would happen to us managers, and Ira assured us that we would still maintain being managers of our stores. 75 We were discussing inventory control and Leslie Thompson asked if she could fire a particular employee of hers, which was Phyllis Dolby, and Ira asked her why she wanted to, and she said, I just don't care for her to work for me because she's bossy, and Ira said, Is she dishonest, and Leslie said, No. He went on to say, Well, get rid of her. He went on to say that we should get rid of any older employees that we felt may be dishonest or--I'm looking for the word to say--might be making our inventories come up short. 76    77 Q. It was such a huge loss that it practically would take a tractor-trailer truck or several to haul that much merchandise out of there, is that right? 78