By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The attorney for a former Circle K store manager claims his client was wrongfully terminated after following company policy regarding unsold lottery tickets. The manager purchased $25 worth of unclaimed tickets from a customer, one of which turned out to be a $12.8 million jackpot winner. Despite believing he was adhering to an unwritten company practice and consulting with his supervisor, the manager was fired for policy violation. He is now seeking to clear his name, while the lottery winnings are held pending the outcome of a lawsuit.
Read the original article here
The legal battle between Circle K and an employee over a staggering $12.8 million lottery ticket is a truly complex and disheartening affair, highlighting a stark conflict between corporate policy and individual fortune. At the heart of this dispute lies an alleged unwritten policy within Circle K stores. According to sworn affidavits from current and former employees, there was a consistent practice where employees, including cashiers, bonus managers, and store managers, were held responsible for purchasing accidentally generated online lottery tickets if their total value exceeded $20. This policy seemingly mandated that these unsold tickets be bought by the employee using their personal funds at full price, with the understanding that the store would not reimburse them.
This alleged policy raises some serious eyebrows, especially when considering the common practice in other jurisdictions that offers a “void” option on lottery terminals for precisely such scenarios – when a customer doesn’t pay for a printed ticket. In those instances, a slip is generated to document the voided ticket, allowing for terminal balance adjustments, rather than forcing an employee to shoulder the financial burden. It’s a stark contrast to the situation at Circle K, where the unwritten rule appears to have placed the risk squarely on the shoulders of their employees.
The narrative that Circle K is “committed to doing the right thing” and views the lawsuit as a request for court guidance, rather than a direct action against any specific party, feels particularly disingenuous given the circumstances. The fact that the employee was fired after this winning ticket surfaced adds another layer of controversy. It begs the question: if Circle K is merely seeking clarity, why resort to terminating an employee who, according to his statements, was following an established, albeit unwritten, practice?
The core of the legal fight seems to hinge on ownership. Circle K appears to be asserting a claim to the winnings, while the employee, who purchased the ticket under these unusual circumstances, believes it should be his. The timing of the purchase is a significant point of contention. Reports suggest that the employee only bought the accumulated unsold tickets the day after the lottery drawing, after realizing one of them was a winner. This timing, coupled with an alleged instruction from his boss to clock out, purchase the tickets, and then clock back in, paints a picture that Circle K is likely arguing as an attempt to acquire a winning ticket with prior knowledge.
The assertion that Circle K wants the money for themselves, even when presented with an opportunity to potentially garner positive public perception by acknowledging the employee’s situation and perhaps revising the policy, is a sentiment echoed by many. The contrast between the immense wealth of a corporation and the life-changing sum for an individual employee, especially one who was seemingly adhering to internal operational procedures, makes the company’s stance appear particularly harsh. It’s a situation where a seemingly small, unwritten rule of business practice has ballooned into a multi-million dollar legal showdown.
Adding to the complexity, it’s been noted that the employee’s own attorney had a differing perspective before being hired, with some sources suggesting that an attorney not involved in the litigation pointed out that the store manager would likely need to prove they lacked knowledge of the winning numbers prior to purchasing the ticket. This points to the established rules potentially indicating that the tickets belonged to Circle K once printed, creating a difficult legal path for the employee. However, other perspectives suggest that lottery tickets, once printed, are essentially final and cannot be canceled or returned, and the responsibility often falls on the cashier to ensure payment before printing.
The situation is further muddied by claims that another employee, who sold the ticket, has also made a claim on the winnings, hinting at a possible verbal agreement to split the prize, which has not been prominently featured in all accounts of the story. This adds another layer of potential dispute and suggests that the employee might not be the sole claimant beyond Circle K. Ultimately, the legality and enforceability of such an unwritten policy, especially when it forces employees to assume financial risk for business operations, are likely to be heavily scrutinized in court. The state’s gaming commission’s role and how they interpret the rules regarding the purchase of lottery tickets after a drawing has occurred will be crucial in determining the outcome of this extraordinary legal fight.