Depression falls short as defence for stolen jacket
Danny worked for 19 years in the sanitation department of a large Canadian city.
One year he had perfect attendance and as a result received an award. He got to choose between clothing, merchandise or gift cards. He chose a jacket with his name on it.
About a month later he was walking by one of the manager’s offices and saw his jacket. He took it and did not tell anyone.
When the city began an investigation into the missing jacket, Danny did not fess up. In fact, on two occasions over the following month he asked the boss what was going on with the jacket. Eventually the city got a hold of the appropriate security tapes and there was Danny holding his jacket. He finally admitted to taking it and provided a note from his doctor confirming that he was suffering from depression and anxiety. He was suspended and then terminated.
The termination letter said, “As a result of your misconduct it has been determined that you cannot be relied upon to carry out your duties and conduct yourself with honesty and integrity, therefore we have made the decision to end the relationship and terminate your employment.”
As part of challenging his termination, Danny got a report from a psychiatrist that confirmed he was suffering from major depressive disorder. The psychiatrist wrote, “Regarding the termination of Danny’s employment, clearly it is conjecture as to how this illness affected his behaviour. Depression can lead to poor judgment, difficulty concentrating and a variety of other symptoms. This may be a mitigation factor in this unfortunate event.”
The employer got its own doctor and asked whether there was a causal link between Danny’s medical condition and his ability to know between right and wrong and the consequences of his actions. The doctor wrote that there was “no significant evidence of psychological impairment that would likely account for his behaviour and no evidence of a causal link.”
When Danny filed a complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal, he claimed he was discriminated against based on his disability and this one event should have been overlooked because of his depression. He wrote, “I don’t know why I didn’t tell the city sooner that I had taken the jacket. I know it doesn’t make sense and that because they thought the jacket was missing they had to look for it and investigate, but I can’t explain my actions, except to say that at the time it happened, my mind just wasn’t right. My mood and my emotions and my memory were poor and I was under so much stress that I was making poor choices.”
On the one hand you have a very long-term employee with a good record who suddenly does something bizarre and is not given a second chance. On the other hand, from the employer’s perspective, they have somebody who lied to his supervisors and only admitted the truth when he had no other option.
Danny’s case was dismissed before it even got to a hearing. It was decided there was no chance he could succeed.
For better or for worse, a favourable finding for someone in Danny’s situation is a slippery slope that few adjudicators are willing to go down. Generally speaking, gambling and substance abuse addictions do not justify theft, nor does depression. If there had been firm medical evidence making a causal connection between Danny’s behaviour and his condition, things would likely have turned out differently for him. If he had not sustained the lie for a month and had quickly confessed, that would also have changed things.
However, I can’t help but think that his anxiety levels were what kept him from admitting he had taken his own jacket.