VANCOUVER — A woman who worked for Burger King for nearly 25 years has been awarded $46,000 by a court after she was fired over what a judge says was a misunderstanding over a fish sandwich, fries and a drink taken at the end of her shift.
In her ruling, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Lisa Warren says when employee discounts and other food policies are applied, the value of what was taken amounted to about 50 cents.
Usha Ram had worked at various Burger King restaurants around Metro Vancouver since 1989 and sued for wrongful dismissal after being fired in December 2013 for taking the fish sandwich, a medium order of fries and a drink.
The 55-year-old woman admitted she took the food without paying, but said she asked the restaurant's general manager and was given permission to do so.
People dining at the Burger King restaurant in Toronto. (Photo: Roberto Machado Noa/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Franchise owner Janif Mohammed conceded during the trial that Ram was given permission to take the sandwich without paying for it, but she was not authorized to take the fries or drink and that theft constituted cause for dismissal.
Mohammed testified during the trial that he had a "zero-tolerance" for theft by his employees, no matter the value of the items stolen or the circumstances, the ruling says.
Warren's ruling says Ram was making a minimum wage salary of $21,000, was a hard-working and reliable employee, and even if the franchise owner could have proved she intended to steal the food, the circumstances would not amount to cause for being fired.
The judge says Ram was supporting her physically disabled husband and mentally disabled daughter when she was fired.
Warren awarded her $21,000 for lost salary and an additional $25,000 in aggravated damages for the "unreasonable, unfair and unduly insensitive manner'' of her firing.
"There is no doubt that the defendant's employees should not take food without authorization," her ruling says.
But there is no proof the woman tried to conceal the food, she had no discipline history and had a excellent working record, the ruling says.
Ram asked for $210K
Ram had asked for a combined damage award of $210,000, but Warren said $46,000 was more appropriate for lost wages and aggravated damages.
"On the record before me, I find that the manner of the dismissal caused Ms. Ram to suffer shame, embarrassment, anxiety and distress beyond that which she would have suffered anyway as a result of the dismissal ... ."
She said Ram was treated unfairly and with undue insensitivity.
Also on HuffPost:
Burger King wasn’t exactly an uncommon name for a burger joint when the chain was attempting to expand, which landed them in some serious pickles. For example, when Burger King opened 50 locations in Illinois in the 1960s, the owners of an existing restaurant in the small town of Mattoon (who had trademarked the name Burger King in the state) sued them in what turned out to be a landmark case that’s still studied in law school. The case ended up going all the way to federal court, where it was decided that, because the corporation had a national trademark but the family-owned Burger King was just trademarked in the state, Burger King was allowed to open anywhere they pleased as long as it wasn’t within 20 miles of the Mattoon restaurant. To this day, there’s a Burger King in Mattoon that has no affiliation with the chain. Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons Click Here to See More of the 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Burger King d
When Burger King was angling to get into the Australian market, they faced a similar situation: An existing restaurant in Adelaide had already trademarked the name, and wasn’t budging. So parent company Pillsbury provided franchisee Jack Cowin with a list of names that the company had already trademarked, and he chose Hungry Jack, the name of Pillsbury’s pancake mix. To this day, all Australian Burger Kings are called Hungry Jack’s. Photo Credit: Shutterstock
Remember the oddball proto-viral campaign Subservient Chicken and the creepy “Wake Up with the King” commercials? Those were all part of a concerted effort in the early- to mid-2000s to appeal to the male 18-to-24 demographic. The new products released to help get young guys through the doors included the Enormous Omelet Sandwich, which contained 730 calories and 45 grams of fat (17 of them saturated) and the Meat’normous Sandwich, which was even unhealthier. The BK Stacker, which was introduced in 2006, came with up to four patties. These items received a lot of negative press due to their insane calorie counts, and when the company was purchased by 3G in 2010 this strategy was discontinued. The giant sandwiches were replaced by less “male-oriented” items, like chicken tenders and smoothies. Photo Credit: Flickr/ Mark H Click Here to See More of the 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Burger King d
Want delivery? Burger King is testing out delivery in 14 states: You can order online and have your meal driven to your door in specially designed boxes intended to keep the food hot. Photo Credit: Bkdelivers.com
If you’ve thought about opening a Burger King franchise of your own (and really, who hasn’t?), all you’ll need is $1.5 million in net worth, $500,000 in liquid assets, a $50,000 franchise fee, and the time to complete 84 days of classroom training and seven weeks of in-restaurant training. Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com Click Here to See More of the 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Burger King d