By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The morning began routinely for Robert Gawlitza, manager of a north Phoenix Circle K, until an employee informed him a winning $12.8 million lottery ticket had been printed at their store. Gawlitza, after clocking out and changing, purchased the ticket believing it was permissible, intending to split the winnings with two employees. However, Circle K quickly rescinded their initial approval, confiscated the ticket, and subsequently fired Gawlitza, who then faced a lawsuit from the company to determine the ticket’s rightful ownership. Gawlitza, now with legal representation, is pressing his claim, asserting he followed company policy and seeking to clear his name amidst the unprecedented controversy.
Read the original article here
A Phoenix man, at the center of a high-stakes dispute over a $12.8 million lottery ticket, has finally broken his silence, shedding light on the circumstances surrounding his purchase and the subsequent fallout. This complex situation, which involves a long-standing company policy and a surprising turn of events, has captured significant public attention.
The core of the controversy lies in a supposed Circle K policy that allegedly required employees to purchase accidentally generated, unsold lottery tickets with their own money. According to this policy, which the company now appears to be disputing, such tickets, and any winnings they generated, were considered the property of the purchasing employee. This practice, if indeed followed, suggests a framework where employees bore the risk of unsold tickets but also stood to gain from any windfalls.
Evidence presented in a legal filing includes text messages between the man, identified as Gawlitza, and a Circle K district manager. These messages reportedly show Gawlitza receiving approval to undertake the very maneuver that led to his acquisition of the winning ticket. The filing further details that Circle K’s established protocol, though unwritten, mandated that employees purchase unsold tickets when their total value exceeded $20, prioritizing the most expensive tickets first. The company, it is claimed, did not reimburse employees for these purchases, and any winnings were intended to belong to the employee.
Adding weight to Gawlitza’s claims are affidavits from several current and former Circle K employees. These individuals attest to the existence of this policy, with one noting a $9 win under similar circumstances without any claim from Circle K. Another former manager recounted purchasing over $100 in unsold tickets to prevent other employees from facing disciplinary action for not adhering to this unwritten rule. This collective testimony paints a picture of a consistent and known practice within the company.
Gawlitza’s account suggests that he purchased the winning ticket for $10, a sum that he believed fulfilled the requirement to reduce the remaining value of such tickets below the $20 threshold. He maintains that he was acting in accordance with the company’s directive, which seemingly put the onus on employees to absorb the cost of these “mistake” tickets.
The narrative takes a sharp turn, however, after the ticket was revealed to be a massive winner. Within hours of Gawlitza’s purchase and subsequent notification to his district manager, Circle K’s stance reportedly shifted dramatically. The company allegedly began questioning Gawlitza about the purchase and eventually sought to confiscate the ticket, which he had signed and intended to split with colleagues. This abrupt change in behavior, from tacit approval to aggressive pursuit, is at the heart of Gawlitza’s grievance.
The communication between Gawlitza and his district manager reveals a stark contrast in their immediate reactions. Gawlitza, expressing his newfound financial relief, texted, “We ain’t quitting the store or you. We just are not broke anymore.” This statement highlights his perception that the winning ticket represented a life-changing opportunity that he had earned through adherence to company practices.
The dispute raises intriguing questions about the very nature of lottery ticket sales and the responsibility for unsold or accidentally printed tickets. The idea that employees were implicitly or explicitly required to purchase these tickets, especially when they were already known to be losers after the drawing, seems inherently problematic. The fact that a ticket could be “accidentally” printed and then become the subject of such a significant dispute also points to potential vulnerabilities in lottery systems and retailer procedures.
The legal filings suggest that Circle K’s policy was to ensure that employees either bought these tickets or found regulars who would. This created a situation where employees either absorbed the cost or encouraged customers to do so. In cases where customers declined, employees were then expected to purchase them themselves, with the understanding that any winnings would be theirs.
The swiftness with which Circle K allegedly moved to claim ownership and confiscate the ticket, despite Gawlitza’s adherence to what he believed was company policy and his clear communication with management, has led many to view the company as attempting to unfairly seize the winnings. The fact that he informed management and received an affirmative response before purchasing the ticket seems to undermine Circle K’s current position.
The legal strategy employed by Gawlitza appears to focus on demonstrating that he followed established, albeit unwritten, company protocols. The inclusion of affidavits from other employees corroborating the existence of this policy is a crucial element of his defense. The argument is essentially that if Circle K profited from a policy that placed the risk on employees, they should also be bound by that policy when a significant win occurs.
The case also brings to light the broader issue of employee rights and corporate responsibility, particularly in situations where policies are informal or subject to interpretation. The fact that Gawlitza had worked for Circle K for over a decade before this incident adds another layer to the narrative, suggesting a long-term employee caught in an unexpected and potentially unfair situation.
Ultimately, the conversation surrounding this $12.8 million ticket revolves around who truly owns it and whether Circle K can retroactively invalidate a policy that appears to have been in place for some time, especially when it results in a substantial financial gain for the company. Gawlitza’s decision to finally speak out is a crucial step in bringing his side of the story to the public and, presumably, to the court.