Bank Clerk Fired Over Cash Theft Tends to Shopping Addiction, Court Finds Severity of Misconduct
A bank employee was dismissed after a total of 8,335 euros disappeared from the institution, and the case drew attention to the question of responsibility and intent in the workplace. While the employee initially suggested that a district manager may have played a role, the worker ultimately admitted the occurrence and argued that an uncontrollable shopping impulse was driving the action. The situation sparked a broader discussion about how impulse control disorders can intersect with occupational duties, especially in roles that handle money and sensitive financial information.
In July 2021, the Social Court of Cartagena weighed the evidence and concluded that the misconduct was very serious but that elements of the case required deeper examination. The court found that the employee’s actions damaged trust and breached fundamental duties, yet the analysis did not definitively prove a loss of free will or a complete lack of judgment that would negate responsibility. This distinction mattered because it influenced the assessment of disciplinary measures and potential avenues for rehabilitation or alternative assignments within the bank, rather than a simple punitive action.
The trial included testimony from an independent expert who examined the individual’s personality profile and decision-making processes. The expert’s conclusions did not demonstrate that the worker’s willpower or cognitive control had vanished at the moment of the acts in question. The court noted that while compulsive shopping might compel a person to act, it does not, on its own, excuse behavior that harms a company or breaches fiduciary duties. In other words, the impulse could explain some of the behavior, but it did not justify it or absolve responsibility entirely.
The ruling clarified that although shopping impulses might be strong enough to drive repeated purchases, they do not alone explain why the employee did not communicate a problem to the employer or seek temporary reassignment that could have mitigated risk. The decision underscored the absence of documented communication about the dependency to the employer, which led to missed opportunities to redirect duties or implement safeguards. As a result, the court reaffirmed the seriousness of the misconduct while allowing for a measured consideration of the employee’s condition and the potential for support-based interventions within the corporate setting.
According to the record, the employee asserted that he sought mental health support at a center specializing in behavioral conditions in an effort to manage compulsive shopping tendencies. That step suggested an awareness of the issue and a willingness to pursue treatment, but it did not alter the employer’s assessment of breach of trust or the necessity for corrective action. The case thus illustrates the challenging balance between recognizing mental health concerns and maintaining high standards of accountability in financial workplaces that require careful oversight and prudent risk management.