DA  REJECTS THEFT CHARGES AGAINST TARGET STORE EMPLOYEES

By:  Roman P. Mosqueda, Esq.

            The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in West Covina rejected the petty theft charges of the Sheriff’s Department against three Target Store employees.

            Informed only on November 17, 2003, by the criminal case clerk of the Citrus (West Covina) Court that the District Attorney had declined to file theft complaints against them, the terminated Target Stores employees are contemplating filing suit for damages against Target Corporation.

            The three employers, one a Filipino-American, were electronics department services clerks of Target Store at Colima Road, Rowland Heights, before they were unceremoniously terminated.

Citations For Petty

Theft (Misdemeanor):

            On or about September 17, 2003, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department issued citations for petty theft under Section 484(A) of the California Penal Code against the three Target Store employees, with $2,500.00 bail.

            They were arrested, booked and released on their own recognizance (O.R.) on the same day, and required to appear in the West Covina Court on November 17, 2003, at 8:30 A.M.

            The dispute concerned the use by Target Store employees of rain checks for software video games.  The three employees charged with petty theft and a lady co-employee who was not charged, used the rain checks to buy the games at discounted prices.

            They were allegedly informed by their Target Store manager that it was okay for them to use the rain checks to buy games for themselves at the discounted rates, which they did.

            Apparently,  Target Store in Rowland Heights changed its policy, or the store manager was wrong, because the Target Store employees were subsequently investigated, terminated, and accused of petty theft.

Full Restitution Made

For Discounts:

            The four employees explained to the Target Stores investigators: Security personnel and Human Resources, that they had permission by their manager to use the rain check policy for themselves, but to no avail.

            Indeed, they paid for the software games, but they were accused of petty theft for the discounts on the prices thereof.

            The Filipino-American employee executed a promissory note to pay $746.00 for the total amount of discounts, which he eventually paid in two payments.  Thus, he had made full restitution to Target Store.

            Even so, Target Store did not drop its complaints against the Filipino-American employee and the two other co-employees who had also paid restitution for the discounts.

Request To Reject

Change of Petty Theft:

            On behalf of the Filipino-American employee, the author filed with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office in West Covina his Request to Reject Charge of Petty Theft [484(A) PC] on September 26, 2003.

            Arguing that this case involves a civil dispute on use by employees of the rain check policy of Target Store, the author pointed out that Target Store investigators had not called the Sheriff’s Department on the lady employee, who had also used rain checks, but only terminated her.

            Thus, he asked that the Office of the  District Attorney reject the charge of petty theft under Section 484(A) of the Penal Code against the Filipino-American employee.  The District Attorney agreed and declined to prosecute all three Target Store employees.

******

            (The Author, Roman P. Mosqueda, trained as a prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office under the Los Angeles County Bar Association Trial Advocacy Program.  He has personally represented numerous defendants in the state and federal courts in California.