For Failing to Comply With Company Policy, Seattle Bank Teller Jim Nicholson Loses Job After Stopping Would-Be Thief
Today seems like a good day for a compliance story of a different nature.
Last week, a Key Bank teller in Seattle was fired by the bank for failing to comply with company policy during a robbery. Key Bank’s policy requires employees to comply with the monetary demands of thieves, but Jim Nicholson had other ideas.
Rather than simply comply and hand over the requested money, Nicholson reportedly threw the bag of money on the floor and then lunged at the robber. The robber then fled and was chased several blocks by Nicholson before he knocked the robber down and held the suspect until police arrived.
Two days later, Nicholson was fired. The following excerpt, from the FoxNews story on the incident, explains the reasoning behind the firing of Nicholson:
“Our policies and procedures are in the best interests of public safety and are consistent with industry standards,” Foster said in a statement to FOXNews.com on Monday. “Money, which is insured, can be replaced. Lives cannot.”
Seattle Police Sgt. Sean Whitcomb echoed Foster’s sentiment.
“It really doesn’t matter if you’re a bank teller or a citizen walking down the street. Generally speaking, it’s best to be a good witness,” Whitcomb told FOXNews.com. “And quite honestly, this is also true for people who are off-duty police officers too.”
In the event of a crime in progress, Whitcomb urged citizens to get a description of the suspect, especially of his or her clothing.
“It’s best to help the people who are on duty, to help them catch the person,” he said. “There’s just so many bad people out there and there’s so many variables.”
Just days before the bank incident, Whitcomb said a clerk at a local convenience store in Seattle was killed when he tried to stop an armed robbery in progress.
What are your thoughts on this story?
- Nicholson obviously was able to save the bank money and thwart any potential harm to the people inside, but did he simply get lucky in the process of actually putting himself and others at more risk?
- Do you believe the bank was correct in firing Nicholson, whose actions clearly were not in compliance with company policies?
- Is an “ends justify the means” approach, which Key Bank clearly did not adhere to in this case, ever a good way to handle situations such as these?
Here are some related resources, and then the comment section beckons you below:
- Seattle Key Bank teller Jim Nicholson loses job after stopping robbery — (Fox News)
- Bank worker Jim Nicholson fired thwarting, chasing robber — (KDKA Pittsburgh)
- Bank teller Jim Nicholson chases robber, loses job — (AOL News)
- Bank teller Jim Nicholson foils holdup, nabs suspect, loses job — (The Seattle Times)
- Heartless bank fires heist hero Jim Nicholson — (New York Post)
Tags: company policy, Compliance, Jim Nicholson, Key Bank, Seattle
I just want to say that Jim Nicholson has been a good personal friend of mine for about 9 years, and not only am I proud of him for having done this, but I just read a LOT of comments on The Seattle Times’ website of employers who would gladly offer him a job. Good for him. I hope he comes out of this situation a stronger and better person. He’s the kind of guy you always want to have your back.
I believe this is another example of tort reform is so badly needed in the US. The bank has an interest in safeguarding assets (what company doesn’t?) so protecting company interests should be seen as noble. However, I can see where the bank could be exposed to significant liability if things had gone awry. What if the would-be robber had taken a hostage during the chase that was later killed or injured? Wouldn’t the bank have some liability? I wouldn’t be surprised if the bank had to sack this guy to set a precedent of not tolerating acts of defense by employees, just to protect themselves from future legal actions. Now we have a well-publicized policy that advises bank robbers everywhere that they won’t meet resistance, at least in Seattle.
What he did was foolhardy and reckless. The bank’s risk policies were put into place for a *reason*. He’s lucky he didn’t get seriously hurt or killed (no doubt he or his survivors would sue the bank if he had).
Good thing the crook didn’t pull out a gun or this would be a story with a much different ending. (Let the gun whackos descend!)
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke