Lodge Taverns should be ashamed of themselves for demanding that a bartender repay the stolen money.

Leaving behind the bright lights and bustling streets of Las Vegas, I felt compelled to share a sobering experience with my fellow bartenders. Taking to a Facebook group, I detailed the harrowing incident that unfolded at Lodge Hualapai, a popular gaming tavern nestled near the vibrant district of Summerlin. In a moment of sheer terror, I found myself face-to-face with the barrel of a gun as I was mercilessly robbed. The weight of this traumatic event lingers, and I hope that my message serves as a reminder to stay vigilant and prioritize our safety within the hospitality industry.

On December 4, 2020, in the wee hours of the morning, an incident unfolded that would forever be etched in my memory. It was a daring act of theft, where the cunning robber managed to make off with a staggering sum of nearly $4,000. Parker, my companion in this tale, revealed the distressing aftermath of the crime. He recounted how his employer, without an ounce of compassion, held him solely responsible for the entire loss. To add insult to injury, they even went as far as issuing a threat of termination unless he complied with a repayment scheme.

Vital Vegas initially broke the news, and Parker's remarks were featured in their tweet.

Parker reached out to the corporate office of Lodge Taverns shortly after the robbery occurred.

According to Parker, he was summoned to the corporate office by two high-ranking executives on the morning of the robbery. They wasted no time in informing him that he had to reimburse the entire stolen sum. They gave him an ultimatum: either pay back the full amount, with $300 deducted from each paycheck until the debt was cleared, or face termination.

In Parker's public statement, the contract was embedded, revealing an important agreement. According to the terms, even if he were to depart the company before completing the payment, he would still bear the whole financial obligation. The credibility of Parker's narrative is supported by my reliable sources.

I made numerous efforts to contact The Lodge regarding their side, but encountered difficulties. The company's website is currently down and their social media platforms are inactive. Moreover, the contact information provided seems to be unreliable.

I made attempts to contact the company for a statement via Facebook Messenger, but unfortunately, they did not provide me with any response. Similarly, when the Review-Journal reached out to The Lodge for comment, they also did not receive any reply. This lack of response was also highlighted in a report by Newsweek. As far as I know, the group has chosen to remain silent regarding Parker's allegations.

Parker shares his tale on a Las Vegas radio show.

The Lodge Hualapai, according to him, lacks an electronic lock system. As a result, the thief managed to gain entry at 6:24am without needing an employee to buzz him inside. Most gaming taverns, on the other hand, incorporate an electronic lock system as part of their security measures. These systems are commonly utilized during overnight shifts and, in certain instances, operate round the clock.

At the time, Parked mentioned that two additional Lodge establishments had recently experienced theft. It was discovered that a different Hualapai tavern belonging to another company had also been robbed shortly prior to The Lodge.

Duos accused in theft, Parker gave testimony to a panel of judges.

The story was covered by The Las Vegas Review-Journal. According to the newspaper, a couple was accused of committing robbery at the Lodge Hualapai as well as various bars in the vicinity.

Parker gave testimony before the grand jury that was looking into the case. Unexpectedly, a man and woman were indicted, even though there seemed to be no link to Parker.

Which type of organization believes that this is an acceptable practice?

The pandemic hit us hard in the bar industry. Throughout 2020, bars were either closed or had to operate at reduced capacity, making it difficult to stay afloat. To make matters worse, unemployment checks were delayed due to the overwhelming demand on Nevada's system. Trying to imagine myself in Parker's situation is quite challenging. There's a lot to unravel and comprehend here.

According to Parker, amidst the chaos of the robbery, he was unexpectedly asked to sign a contract assuming liability. It's quite perplexing to imagine someone being mentally prepared to enter into such a crucial agreement at that precise moment. Moreover, it occurred during one of the most dire periods of the pandemic.

I believe it is highly unlikely for any ethical company to put its employees in a situation where they could potentially lose their job and still be obligated to repay the loss caused by a robbery. Parker, on the other hand, might have jeopardized his employment for a different reason altogether. It is possible that he left himself vulnerable to such a predicament.

Is this legal?

According to the regulations outlined in NAC 608.160, it is permissible under Nevada legislation to engage in this particular form of behavior. This specific provision allows employers to deduct an amount from an employee's wages if there exists a justifiable foundation to believe that said employee bears responsibility for the deducted sum.

As someone who lacks legal expertise, it is difficult for me to accept any reasoning that asserts Parker bears full responsibility for the entirety of the loss while also maintaining their position on the staff with the expectation of repaying it. This is particularly perplexing given that there are two individuals who appear to have been indicted for the crime without any apparent connection to Parker.

It's rather puzzling to me how he could be brought back to work at the same place if he was involved in the robbery or if his negligence resulted in a significant loss of money from the cash register. Moreover, the fact that they got him to sign the contract mere hours after the robbery raises suspicions about their true intentions.

I've got another concern on my mind, and it's about what Parker mentioned regarding the repayment amount being the entire sum of the robbery. This statement makes me question the company's perspective, suggesting that they believe any employee should be held accountable for any kind of robbery, without considering whether the actual loss was excessive or not. It appears that no sensible deduction was made from the repayment plan to account for a reasonable amount lost.

In my opinion, the company has essentially transferred the full burden of responsibility for a robbery to its employees, despite the fact that they do not appear to be equipped with an electronic locking mechanism.

The behavior of The Lodge raised concerns for both lawyers interviewed in the earlier Review-Journal article. One attorney believes that there is potential for a valid wrongful termination lawsuit.

Always consult with an attorney before signing any documents of this nature.

I find it challenging to think of any justification for affixing my signature to a document of this nature without seeking legal counsel beforehand. I hypothesize that the sole circumstance in which an attorney might endorse such an act is if it ensures one's freedom from imprisonment. Should I ever find myself compelled to sign such a document, I strongly urge seeking the assistance of an attorney expeditiously in order to render the contract null and void.

The actions I would take if I found myself in Parker's shoes.

If I were Parker, my initial course of action would be to dispatch a demand letter, accompanied by certified mail, to the company in question. This necessary step is mandated by the local small claims court and entails claiming a sum of approximately $4,000, in addition to accruing interest.

Should the company fail to reimburse this amount within the 14-day grace period, my course of action would involve initiating a legal process in a small claims court. To proceed with this, I would be required to pay a filing fee, which typically amounts to approximately $106.

After completing the necessary paperwork, I would immediately proceed to draft a press release that highlights the details of my lawsuit, ensuring that the narrative accurately reflects my grievances. Subsequently, I would actively seek out opportunities to engage in further interviews with local media outlets in Las Vegas, effectively amplifying the reach of my message. By doing so, I aim to convey a resolute stance against such egregious actions, regardless of their legality, with the potential outcome of reclaiming the approximately $4,000 that was unjustly deducted from Parker's earnings. Ultimately, my objective is to send a clear and unequivocal message to all employers, leaving no room for tolerance towards such wrongdoing.

I strongly believe that it is crucial to report this matter to the Nevada gaming regulators. The implementation of such a policy has a detrimental impact on the overall safety of both customers and staff members in gaming taverns. In the event of a future robbery, a bartender might feel compelled to intervene personally if they perceive the stolen funds as their own. This situation could potentially escalate to the point where someone gets shot. Therefore, it is imperative to address this concern as soon as possible.

The Lodge Taverns are receiving just what they are owed.

I can't help but think that the Lodge group of taverns is in for a rough ride. The amount of negative publicity they will receive is likely to be much more than $4,000. Personally, I've made up my mind never to step foot in one of their establishments again, and judging from the reaction on social media, I'm not alone in boycotting them.

I'm not one to initiate legal action, but this is simply not something I can let slide as an acceptable way of conducting business. If necessary, I trust the judicial system will intervene and address any outstanding matters. Regardless of the outcome, it appears evident that The Lodge is faced with a significant predicament that requires immediate attention and resolution.

No sympathy should be given to them as the company is solely responsible for its own downfall due to an employment practice that I deem morally unacceptable.

I empathize with the workers, and I wish them improved prospects in the coming days.